Computer Services Home - Youngstown State University

Transcription

Youngstown State University
Kilcawley Center
Renovation/Expansion
Planning Study
June 1, 2007
Burt Hill Project 06078.00
© Burt Hill, 2007
Kilcawley Center
BH 06078.00
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
1.1 Background
1.2 Professional Services
1.3 Mission and Vision
1.4 Existing Data
1.5 Facility Programming
1.6 Site Issues
1.7 Preliminary Concepts
1.8 Preliminary Budget
1.9 Project Schedule
1.10 Peripheral Investigations
1
Focus Group Narratives & Data
2.1 Data Collection Process
2.2 Focus Group Process
2.3 Focus Group Summaries
2.4 Visual Listening Exercises
2.5 Conclusion
2
Program Recommendations
3.1 Preface
3.2 Space Program Summary
3.3 Benchmarking Matrix
3
Preliminary Design & Project Scope
4.1 Preface
4.2 Student Planning Center Considerations
4.3 Design Narratives
4.4 Conceptual Plans & Views
4.5 Cost Summary
4
Appendix
5.1 Discovery Workshop Meeting Minutes
5.2 Kilcawley Center Meeting Room Usage Data
5.3 Images of Student Centers
©Burt Hill 2007
5
Executive Summary
©Burt Hill 2007
1
Executive Summary
1.1 Background
The Kilcawley Center was created in 1965, its origin is located in the southeast wing
of the existing center. The center’s evolution continued over the years with two
additions. The first addition occurred in 1973, more than doubling the square footage
and stretching from the original Kilcawley Center to the existing bookstore. Recently,
the Andrews Recreation and Wellness Center was constructed and adjoined to the
north end of Kilcawley Center. Sporadic renovation and continual rearrangement of
functions within Kilcawley Center over the years have resulted in significant
circulation and wayfinding problems. Various functions have also evolved in a way
that no longer conform to their alloted spaces. These issues are compounded by
the lack of coherent organization of spaces and the absence of a defined “front
door”. Despite these problems, the University has been and intends to continue
providing and expanding the availability of services for the growing portion of
resident students who seek opportunties for social interaction, studying and
participation in student activities.
This Planning Study summarizes the architects’ programming workshops, space
requirements, conceptual exercises, and budget estimate. Taken together, these
items will provide a clear and firm guideline for the further development of the master
planning project for YSU.
1.2 Professional
Services
Burt Hill has been retained by Youngstown State University to develop a Planning
Study for the proposed renovation and expansion of the Kilcawley Center. The
professional services include an analysis of the current Kilcawley Center’s program
and activities and determination of space demands as a whole, by department, and
by functional areas.
The professional services also include the following specific tasks:
1. Assess campus and user group needs through a series of campus focus
groups and surveys. The data collected from these exercises will be
used to develop the preliminary space program.
2. Review existing building infrastructure and site conditions in reference to
the proposed design schemes.
3. Develop a space program and scope of work from the collected data.
Preliminary costs will be developed from the initial space program.
4. Develop design concepts from the space program.
5. Evaluate space program, design concepts and preliminary costs. Final
program justification will develop with the assistance of the Core/
Building Committee.
1.3 Mission and
Vision
We understand that the mission and vision for the new Kilcawley Center is the
creation of a well organized and defined
student-focused facility that functions both as
a student center and the University’s
conference center. The new and improved
building will contribute to the range of
necessary student services needed to enrich
and foster a diverse and rewarding campus
life. It will be revised to create a welcoming
environment, accessible and practical for all
students and alumni, providing access to its
numerous campus resources.
Youngstown State University – Kilcawley Center Study
Burt Hill
At the same time, Kilcawley Center must continue to function as the campus
Conference Center, accommodating the need for on-campus meeting spaces and
limited non-campus conferences. The need for a meeting space larger than the
current Chestnut Room has been identified along with a desire to better integrate
that new space with the remainder of the conference facilities.
Furthermore, the aesthetic of Kilcawley Center needs rejuvenation to make it more
inviting and to create both a clear sense of entry and a link from the dormitories of
North campus to the Quad.
Burt Hill devised this Study to closely coordinate with YSU’s Centennial Strategic
Plan for 2008 and all of its objectives.
Guiding materials and information were acquired from several sources, including
student and faculty surveys and visual listening sessions. Burt Hill also completed a
thorough walk-thru of the existing building with director of Facilities Matt Novotny.
These resources were used to aid in the programming process for YSU Kilcawley
Center.
1.4 Existing Data
Burt Hill acquired documents from several sources to aid in the programming
process for the University. Youngstown State University provided Burt Hill with a
copy of various Construction Drawings for the Kilcawley Center. These drawings
were helpful in gaining insight as to the ability of
the existing structure to withstand a major
renovation.
Burt Hill acquired YSU’s Centennial Strategic
Plan for 2008.
The Master Plan provided
excellent
information
regarding
proposed
vehicular and pedestrian traffic locations, service
access points, and proposed green spaces.
Burt Hill completed a thorough walk-thru of the existing building on November 15,
2006 with Matt Novotny. From this walk-thru, Burt Hill was able to review the
general condition of the facility and particular impediments to renovation of certain
areas.
Burt Hill also conducted a walk-thru of Kilcawley House and the Wick Pollack Inn to
investigate possibilities for utilization of those spaces for relocated functions from
Kilcawley Center.
1.5 Facility
Programming
The facility program was developed from an inventory and analysis of existing
spaces and space utilization, results of a series of Discovery workshops, and follow
up meetings with Kilcawley staff, Hunter Morrison and President Sweet. The new
program focuses on moderate growth of conference and office space (Student
activity, Student government etc.) and a reorganization of student space to create a
cohesive student center environment and more effectively and efficiently utilize the
available space.
Burt Hill
The Discovery Workshops, a series of nine
meetings with various factions of the
University, confirmed that there is a strong
desire on campus for the types of services
offered at Kilcawley Center. These
discussions also confirmed that the general
impression of Kilcawley Center is that of “a
conference center with some student
spaces stuffed in here and there”. In other
words, the spaces within the center are not
well organized, especially for student center
functions, and it is a difficult facility to find
your way into or around.
The program therefore, seeks to identify space utilization and desired adjacencies
which will then be studied in a series of conceptual plans that reorganize the space
and provide a new image for Kilcawley Center as well as the creation of a defined
entry to the building both from University Plaza and the Quad.
Highlights of the program include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
1.6 Site Issues
Additional office space for student activities, student government
Consolidation of food service facilities with an overall reduction in total floor
area allotted
Expansion of the Chestnut Room to provide additional seating.
Maintaining most of the existing conference center facilities.
Capturing additional interior space under the deep overhang along the south
side of the building.
Little or no work done to the main kitchen and food prep areas due to large
expense of relocation/expansion.
Although the primary aim of this study is to address interior space organization and
allocation, given that the final product will not likely exceed the basic footprint of the
building, a few site issues are key to the ultimate success of the project.
SITE CIRCULATION/ENTRY SEQUENCE
Currently there is no defined “front door” to Kilcawley Center. New visitors have
difficulty determining where to enter the building. The desire for distinctive and
defined “beacon” entries was clearly expressed in our Discovery Workshops. Work
proceeding on the University Plaza project grants an opportunity to create a front
door for the center coming off an enhanced cul-de-sac at the south end of Elm
Street. This could create an exciting entry sequence for the students coming from
Cafaro and Lyden Houses, as well as visitors to the campus coming from Sweeney
Hall.
LOADING DOCK
The primary impediment to the concept
noted above is the location and condition of
the main loading dock for Kilcawley Center.
Although ideally located for serving the
building both in terms of access to the
service portion of the building and access
from surface streets, it’s location and
unsightliness works against the location of
the “front door” to Kilcawley. It would be problematic and costly to relocate it, so
creation of appropriate screening will be necessary.
Burt Hill
CONNECTION TO THE QUAD
Due in large part to the monolithic design of
the 1970s addition, the nearly windowless
building literally turns its back on one of the
most important components of the YSU
campus, the main Quad. On the south side
of the building the entry hides beneath a
deep overhang, with no hint as to its
location. Furthermore, none of the curving
pathways through the quad lead directly to
the door, which sits hidden from view from
behind a large mound. The concept of figuratively extending Elm Street through the
building and into the rest of campus could be enforced by addressing the
landscaping of the Quad. Although outside the scope of this study, subsequent
investigation of this issue would help reinforce and define the entrance.
CONNECTION TO THE FOUNTAINCOURT
Although there is a side entrance to
Kilcawley Center on axis with the fountain
court, it is seldom used because it departs
from the Chestnut Room and it lacks an
intuitive path to or from it. The ability to
create a visual connection and to extend the
student space out into the fountain court
would be a positive attribute of the redesign
of the center.
1.7 Preliminary
Concepts
As part of the scope of services, Burt Hill developed three concepts responding to
three different budgetary levels. Two of the schemes relocate the Chestnut Room to
the second floor to consolidate the conference functions and allow for expansion of
the largest gathering space in the building. At the same time, space is opened up on
the ground floor for consolidation of the student facilities and to create a large two
story gathering space. These schemes explore the creation of “wow” space in two
ways.
SCHEME 1
A large two story open space cuts through the
building to create an extension of Elm Street
through the building to the quad. The new
beacon entrance is located in the northwest
corner of the existing food court terrace. A
monumental stair will direct visitors down into
the student center, or they can walk into the
conference center on the upper level along a
wide walkway that overlooks the new stair and
terraced lounge.
The Chestnut Room moves to the upper floor and the roof will be raised over this
area to create a two story space.
On the lower floor, the former Chestnut Room is opened up to create a large space
for student interaction and to support the food court. Large windows to the south
bring light into the large space. A secondary entrance on the east side of the building
links the space to the outdoor fountain court. Student oriented offices move to the
lower level and are grouped on the west side of the atrium space. Additional floor
space is reclaimed under the existing exterior overhang.
SCHEME 2
Burt Hill
This is a more modest approach which opens
a monumental stair in the center, guiding
students from a relocated front door and
expanded lobby, down into the student spaces
below and through the building to the quad. In
this scheme the Arby’s dining space is opened
up to create a continuous flowing student
space from the old Chestnut Room to the new
monumental stair. The Chestnut room moves
upstairs as in Scheme 1.
SCHEME 3
This design is in response to the baseline
budget as approved by the Board of Trustees.
In this scheme the Chestnut room is not
relocated. The outdoor courtyard is enclosed
and turned into an atrium lounge. The seating
area around the current Arby’s space is
opened up to create a student gathering
space. The entries are re-worked to create
“beacon” entries and the second floor lobby
area is expanded as a light filled pre-function
space.
1.8 Preliminary
Budget
The YSU Board of Trustees has committed $3.5 million to this project. Burt Hill has
been directed to study three options, one that seeks to meet the minimum
requirements; one that seeks to meet the majority of the desired attributes as defined
in the Discovery Workshops and one that seeks a compromise between those
schemes.
Those schemes, as illustrated in Section 4 of the report, were analyzed to produce
the following order of magnitude costs:
SCHEME 1
SCHEME 2
SCHEME 3
Hard Costs
$12.92 million
$11.28 million
$6.21 million
Soft Costs
$3.88 million
$3.39 million
$1.86 million
Total Budget
$16.79 million
$14.67 million
$8.08 million
1.9 Project Schedule
The project is estimated to take 12 months for design and construction documents,
which could be concurrent with additional fund raising efforts. Bidding and contract
award will take 2 months. As it would be required to keep Kilcawley Center open
throughout construction, we would allow at least 24 months for phased construction,
assuming that major portions of construction would occur during summer term. If the
architect is brought on board by spring 2007, the project would be complete for fall
2010.
1.10 Peripheral
Investigations
Burt Hill was asked as part of this study to look at two other buildings as they relate
to the Kilcawley Center project.
KILCAWLEY HOUSE ADDITION
Part of the campus Master Plan is the proposed two-story addition to the north side
of Kilcawley House. The addition is intended to provide additional office space,
potentially for functions currently located in the Kilcawley Center. The proposed plan
would most likely preclude the use of the first two floors as dormitory space and
require relocation of the amenities on the first floor. Relocating these amenities
upward would further diminish the living experience for dormitory residents. In
reviewing the existing building construction, the structural system is not conducive to
Burt Hill
the creation of standard office spaces due to large cross braces between the
columns in alternate structural bays.
WICK-POLLOCK INN
In December 2006 we reviewed plans, and then toured the Wick Pollock Inn with
Hunter Morrison to investigate the possibilities for use of the former hotel site. The
building consists of a historic mansion converted to a “bed and breakfast” and
subsequently expanded with an 80 room hotel addition completed in 1989. The five
story addition consists of a “high bay” (13’) floor at the ground floor level of the
mansion, this level contains a ballroom, kitchen and room units. Above and below
this level are two room unit levels with shallow (8’-8”) floor to floor heights. The
addition is bearing wall construction with pre-cast concrete plank floors. The hotel
closed in 1996 and was later acquired by the University. Several options were
discussed including:
1. Use the facility as additional dormitory space
2. Restore the facility as a functioning hotel, and utilize it as a learning lab for a
new hospitality management program.
3. Renovate the facility into a conference center, augmenting/replacing facilities
of Kilcawley Center.
Our review concluded that options 1 & 2 were quite viable as, apart from some water
damage from roof leaks, the hotel is in very good shape. Only cosmetic
improvements would be needed to have the hotel rooms function either in their
former capacity or as quite desirable dormitory rooms with private baths. We also
discussed a hybrid approach using the lower floors (below the main floor) as
dormitory rooms and the upper floors as hotel space.
Our discussion of the conference center option concluded that this facility is not a
good candidate for such use. The ballroom can accommodate 200 guests, but the
structure does not easily accommodate the required break out rooms (too small, not
enough ceiling height) and it is too remote from Kilcawley Center to utilize the
facilities there.
Burt Hill
Focus Group Narratives and Data
©Burt Hill 2007
2
Focus Group Narratives and Data
2.1 Data Collection
Process
Development of the Planning Study Document
The Planning Study Document chronicles in detail the following information:
•
•
•
The planning process that resulted in guidelines and concepts developed
from the focus groups and design workshop
Architectural space program and cost estimate
Preliminary program relationship diagrams
Data Collection
In order to identify basic needs and to develop programming concepts for the
Kilcawley Center Renovation/Expansion Study project, the programming team
conducted a series of Focus Group workshops with students, faculty, staff, and
administration at the university. Workshops were held during a two-day session on
October 9th and 10th 2006. The Focus Groups provided the opportunity for the
campus community to give input into the building program.
2.2 Focus Group
Process
The focus group work sessions were informal forums where selected delegates
could discuss general and specific issues affecting the existing Kilcawley Center.
Each focus group consisted of a four-part process;
•
Presentation of the project status and work plan
•
“Visual Listening” exercise
•
Brainstorming session called “Three Questions”
•
Wrap-up discussion explaining student union trends
The focus groups began with an introduction of the programming team members and
the planning objectives. After the presentation of the project status and work plan,
the group participated in a “Visual Listening” exercise, to engage and elicit
responses and reactions to various styles of architecture and interior spaces. Each
focus group member was asked to examine and vote on images displayed on the
wall. Votes were tabulated directly beneath each image with a red or green sticker. A
red dot placed below an image meant that the participant did not react positively to
the picture. A green dot implied that the image was appealing to the voter. Once the
votes were cast, results were discussed and patterns were evaluated. A detailed
matrix illustrating the voting results and reactions for each group can be found in
Section 3.4.
Following the conversation about the images, the group moved right into the next
exercise. This part of the focus group is called “Three Questions.” This activity is
meant to be a brainstorming session to obtain honest opinions concerning the image
of the existing Kilcawley Center. The participants were asked to think about the “big
picture” and to consider the positive and negative aspects of the current Kilcawley
Center, as well as what they think the ideal image should be for the future renovated
Kilcawley Center.
These responses – positive, negative, and ideal, were
immediately written onto a board for all to see. At the end of the process, each group
had its own list of responses posted around the room. A summary of the Focus
Group’s responses to the Three Questions can be found in Section 3.3, along with
each of the Focus Group’s meeting minutes.
To conclude the focus group, a presentation followed the “Three Questions”
exercise. The presentation by the architects outlined some initial design criteria for
student centers nationwide.
Burt Hill
Prior to the architects’ campus visit, program data sheets were distributed to the
focus group leaders in each focus group. These data sheets asked very specific
questions geared towards obtaining square foot requirements, space usage
information, and finish types. The architects and users reviewed the responses to the
data sheets and discussed how the departments function and what type of space will
be required to best support them. The feedback from the data sheets became an
integral part in developing the space program.
2.3 Focus Group
Summaries
Although each group had distinct views on services or functions that dealt with their
particular focus group, several opinions were shared among various groups.
POSITIVE: What is LIKED about the current Kilcawley Center?
• Central location
• Functionality of Chestnut Room
• Variety of services/functions available
NEGATIVE: What is NOT LIKED about the current Kilcawley Center?
• Limited daylight and views
• Poor lighting
• Maze-like, hard to find things, lack of clear passage through building
• Building acts as barrier in it’s centralized location
• Lack of parking
• More of a Conference Center than a Student Center
• Poor wheelchair access
• No life after hours
• Insufficient seating for eating areas
• Larger Chestnut Room needed
• No services for commuters
IDEAL: What should be included in a renovated Kilcawley Center?
• Better organization, consolidation (and possible relocation) of functions
• Add daylight and create better views through the building via atrium space to
increase visibility of functions
• Separate conference functions from student functions
• Evening/24 hour access to functions and food for commuters and residents
• Spaces/services geared towards commuters
• Consolidation/re-organization of seating for food services
• Larger Chestnut Room, more flexible multi-purpose rooms
• Better use of unreserved conference spaces
• Centralized “meeting place” for students to congregate
• Aesthetically pleasing look and inviting/distinguishable entrances into
building
• Better wayfinding and visible information desk from both sides of building
• Provide more leisure recreation/events that would increase foot traffic,
especially in evenings (movie theatre, bowling alley, game room, more table
tennis, etc)
• Clear circulation throughout building, and throughway to opposite side of
building
• Various sizes and types of study/eating/socializing spaces
• Nearby parking for various functions and vehicular access/drop-off
• Handicap accessibility
• More food options – chains and non-traditional options
• Debit card usable for food service, food plan card usable at convenience
store
• Use of technology through electronic banners, wireless access, TVs, etc.
The documented meeting minutes are attached, expressing individual opinions of the
various Focus Groups.
Burt Hill
Burt Hill
2.4 Visual Listening Exercise
Faculty
IMAGE
YES
NO
COMMENTS (P= Postive comments, N= Negative comments)
1
2
N - Looks like a waste of space, but OK for corridor.
3
P - Like it because it looks efficient.
N - Don't like it because it looks cold.
4
P - Looks like a nice comfortable place for business
executives.
N - It looks like fabricated and dark.
5
P - It is open and can see from one area to another.
P - Sense of visual connectivity.
6
P - Like because it is open.
7
P - Like because it is open and comfortable, cozy.
P - Like because it is light and airy.
N - Too open and potential for lack of privacy
8
P - Seating looks comfortable for outdoor seating.
9
P - Like because of transparancy, able to look outside.
P - Places to sit.
10
P - Like because of transparency, able to look outside.
P - Looks cozy.
N - Furniture looks too difficult to move.
Youngstown State University - Kilcawley Center Study
Burt Hill
Faculty
IMAGE
YES
NO
11
P - Large space could be used for anything.
N - Don't like sign.
12
P - Interior offices could get light.
N - It looks like a factory and windows too small.
13
N - It looks too commercial.
14
N - It looks too cluttered.
15
P - 2 story space looks open.
P - Glass all around so you see out.
P - Could address large crowd from above.
16
N - Looks too narrow even though it could be done
on Kilcawley.
N - Looks too institutional.
17
N - Looks like it would not be much of an improvement.
18
P - Good access for vehicular drop off.
19
P - Like because of light.
P - A lot of glass, could imagine this at Kilcawley.
P - Looks inviting and welcoming.
20
N - Looks like typcial college building, but you want
to be different. Looks like just a building.
Burt Hill
Kilcawley Staff
IMAGE
YES
NO
1
N - Looks good for dormitory, but not for student cntr.
2
P - Unanimously liked because it is open and light
with nice outdoor space, but still cozy and not
vacuous.
P - Like the lighting and the curve.
3
N - Too dark, too institutional.
4
N - Looks too much like a lodge.
N - Too dark.
5
N - Looks too small for space, welcomes too few
people.
N - Prefer more places to land, and space needs to
be warmer.
6
P - Unanimously like because of combination of
seating area and large program area.
7
N - Feels too formal.
8
N - Too colonial looking for YSU.
P - Outdoor seating is good.
9
P - Like because of light.
P - Like stonework because it makes you feel
grounded.
10
N - Looks too much like faculty oriented space.
Burt Hill
Kilcawley Staff
IMAGE
YES
NO
11
N - Too much like a mall, too many people, too loud.
12
N - Too sterile, too cold.
N - Looks like a mall similar to a galleria.
13
N - It looks like an airport, too sterile.
14
N - Unanimously don't like.
15
P - Like open feeling and views of other spaces.
P - Looks welcoming and confortable without taking
too much space.
N - No place to land, too much circulation space.
16
N - Universally disliked, but looks like entry to
bookstore and fitness center.
N - Too imposing.
17
P - It matches style of bookstore.
18
P - Liked covered walkway to entry.
P - Liked beacon aspect of entry.
19
P - Most liked because it looks like main entry that
Kilcawley Center currently lacks.
P - Looks like entries at Bookstore and Fitness Cntr.
20
N - Looks like a hospital
P - Glass area is liked.
Burt Hill
Residence Hall Staff
IMAGE
YES
NO
1
N - It looks too comfortable and too intimate.
P - it looks like a nice place to study.
2
P - It looks light and airy, you can see outside.
Looks like is should be connected to Fitness Cntr.
3
N - It looks too clean.
4
N - Looks like Chili's, looks like manufactured comfort.
N - Looks like it is trying too hard to be unique.
5
P - Looks like a place to hand out, bring everything
around it into it.
P - Like because of distant views and potential
for interaction.
6
7
P - Likes style of architecture, looks clean. It is OK
if it is a little formal, need to find balance between
modern and traditional.
8
N - Does not look urban.
9
P - Provides space outside for dining, eating & meeting
N - Don't like lamp shades & angular design elements.
10
N - Looks too rustic. Does not feel like it belongs
to Kilcawley.
P - Like the windows, but study rooms should not be
too bright.
Burt Hill
Residence Hall Staff
IMAGE
YES
NO
11
N - Looks too much like a mall.
P - Like 2 story space and views throughout.
12
N - Looks too commercial, looks cheesy.
13
P - Like because 2 story space.
P - Modern & clean without being fussy. Don't want
fancy but want clean and modern.
14
N - It looks like the old design.
15
P - it is very warm and transparent.
16
N - Generally don't like.
17
N - It does not seem inviting, does not say "come in
and play".
P - It is simple and elegant.
P - It is a reasonable compromise.
18
P - Like it because of protected walk area.
19
P - Like openness, windows, even at night.
P - Like outdoor seating.
20
v
N - It looks like a courthouse.
P - It looks like it belongs on campus, connecting
2 buildings.
Burt Hill
Student Government
IMAGE
YES
NO
1
P - Like cozy warm feeling space.
N - It looks like a dorm.
2
P - It is open.
P - Like the daylight & views outside.
3
N - Too industrial and not comfortable.
N - Too Jetson-like.
4
P - Like because it is wood.
N - It looks too much like a lodge in the country.
5
P - It looks fun with more exciting furniture.
6
P - It is open, like the balcony above.
P - Like the fireplace.
7
P - It has more class and it is open and well lit.
8
N - Limited use as a result of the weather.
9
10
P - More traditional look with the wood.
Burt Hill
Student Government
IMAGE
YES
NO
11
N - Looks like a mall, too commercial, too cold.
12
13
14
15
16
N - Don't like because it is too straight.
17
P - Like the glass on front.
P - Looks welcoming.
18
P - Like the brick.
N - It does not look fun and welcoming.
19
P - Like the glass on front.
P - Looks welcoming.
20
N - Unanimously don't like.
Burt Hill
Student Life
IMAGE
YES
NO
1
N - Don't like it because it looks too quiet.
2
P - Unanimously like becaseu it is open, connection
to outside and patio.
P - Liked because it is modern.
3
N - It is too institutional, too contemporary, too sterile.
4
N - Too dark, too rustic.
N - Does not look inviting for noise.
5
P - It looks like it would be good usable space for
programs such as an oxygen bar, but also with
small group areas for team work opportunities.
6
P - Liked it because ability to engage different levels.
P - It looks student friendly.
P - Services look like they would be easily seen.
P - Like windows with natural light.
7
N - Looks like a dorm, too formal.
8
N - Like outside componeent, but architecture does
not fit with YSU campus.
9
N - It looks like a restaurant in a hotel.
10
P - Like it because it is contemporary.
Burt Hill
Student Life
IMAGE
YES
NO
11
P - Almost unanimously liked the glass and seeing
multiple levels.
12
N - It looks too narrow.
13
P - Like because of elelctronic communication
potential.
14
N - It looke like a cruise ship.
P - It looks like it provides options.
15
P - It looks like an active space, and because of
programming opportunities in 2 story space.
P - Looks like what Akron U did to their Student Union.
P - Looks like a mall and not so academic looking.
N - Openness may not be as useful.
N - Unanimously disliked.
N - Not useful, given the cost.
16
17
18
19
P - Inviting and welcoming.
20
P - It draws you in.
P - It looks like a fitness center.
Burt Hill
Student Mentors
IMAGE
YES
NO
1
P - Like the window sill as a place to relax.
N - Don't like the overly rustic look.
2
P - Like the curves and windows: seemed serene.
P - Liked outside seating area and open modern look.
3
P - Like the clean/sanitary appearance.
N - Don't like overly stark/sterile appearance.
4
N - Don't like the hunting lodge or log cabin look.
5
P - Liked multifunction seating area as a social place
for conversation.
P - Liked windows.
N - Don't like the modern appearance.
6
P - Liked fireplace, gave a homey feeling.
P - Second story creates visual connection.
N - Don’t like the noise in 2 story space.
N - Appears too crowded, congested.
7
P - Like classic, academic look with contrasting
white walls and dark wood.
N - Don't like the academic look of furniture.
8
P - Like the outside seating.
N - Look is not appropriate for YSU.
9
P - Like the stone pillars, recessed lighting and
restaurant look.
10
Yongstown State University - Kilcawley Center Study
P - Like the glass on both sides of seating area,
angled walls and table layout.
N- Don't like the bar look or functionality of the tables.
Burt Hill
Student Mentors
IMAGE
YES
NO
11
12
13
N - Don't like the "mall look".
N - Level of of liveliness may not be appropriate for
campus.
14
P - Like the lighting, ceiling and openness of space.
N - It appears too busy and resembles a cooking
show set.
15
P - Like the glass and openness, which allows views
into space.
N - Don't like the prospect of dirty fingerprinted glass
or a lot of empty, useless space.
16
N - Don't like the hard, "prison"-like appearance.
17
P - Appears plausible in terms of build ability.
N - Don't like the generic, K-12 look.
18
P - Timeless quality that appears academic but not
too rigid.
N - Don't like the church-like appearance.
19
P - Like the welcoming looking windows to the inside.
P - Safe, inviting lighting.
20
P - Like the mix of modern and classic windows.
P - Handicap accessibility.
Yongstown State University - Kilcawley Center Study
Burt Hill
Students
IMAGE
YES
NO
1
N - It looks too quiet.
2
P - Liked the glass, open and airy.
P - Looks larger than it is.
N - Maybe better if just a hallway, too much glass.
3
N - Looks too much like Christman Dining Hall.
4
N - Unanimously disliked.
N - Looks like a hunting lodge.
5
P - Lots of TVs and good views.
P - Looks more spread out.
6
P - Liked because of of fireplace.
P - A central gathering location.
7
N - Looks like a hotel lobby, like LaRiccia lounge.
P - Liked open and airy feeling.
8
N - building looks like a resort.
P - Like open outside seating area.
9
N - Too narrow.
N - Looks like existing Marketplace.
10
P - Liked because warm and cozy.
N - Looked like a ski lodge.
N - Too compact and not a place you could relax.
Burt Hill
Students
IMAGE
YES
NO
11
P - Liked open feeling, looks like food court at a mall.
12
Looks like Tokyo.
N - Don't like wallhanging.
13
P - It is open.
P - Liked the electronic message board.
14
N - Looks cramped, too busy.
15
P - Open with lots of glass.
Looks like mall and OK place.
16
N - Too awkward.
17
P - Liked because of cetneral entrance.
18
P - Liked covered walkway.
N - Looks like administrative building.
19
P - You can see what is happening on the inside.
P - You will notice it if you drive by.
P - Would compliment the Rec Center.
20
Burt Hill
Conclusion
2.5 Conclusion
Today, student centers have become a major drawing card to prospective students
at Universities across the country. The new student centers offer a host of
ammenities to both resident and non-resident students. These centers are the social
hub of the university and the image of the university. In the appendix we have
provided images of new and renovated student centers at peer institutions.
The current Kilcawely Center, whose plan has evolved over the years, is a
patchwork of functions which occupied spaces as they became available. As a
student center, the facility presents a maze of circulation patterns with no clear path
from one point to another and little segregation of conference center and student
functions. The location of the Chestnut Room on the lower level away from all other
conference spaces has proved particularly problematic.
Although it has received continuous “facelifts” over the years and has been
maintained very well, the Discovery Workshop commentary as well as our own
observations conclude that the design of Kilcawley Center is still “stuck in the
1970’s.” Our benchmarking studies show that when compared to peer institutions,
Kilcawley Center possesses most or all of the amenities of the new facilities,
however the quality of those spaces is not regarded as highly desireable at Kilcawley
Center.
After compiling and analyzing the results of the discovery workshops, the meetings
with President Sweet, Jack Fahey, Matt Novotny and Hunter Morrisson, and our
benchmarking studies, we have conluded the following:
•
Students and faculty regard the building as “a good conference center, with
some student amenities stuffed in here and there.”
•
Spaces need to be better organized to separate the functions of conference
center and student center.
•
The current design affords little or no opportunity for natural light penetration
into the main congregation and circulation spaces. Today’s student centers
are flooded with natural light.
•
The building lacks a sense of entry, it is not clear to the new visitor where
one is supposed to enter the center. The building should present an inviting
route throught the center for students and visitors going to/from the main
quad and University Plaza.
•
Once inside the building, wayfinding is neither intuitive nor clearly
delineated. Today’s centers are designed to clearly delineate the entry and
circulation patterns and invite students to circulate through them as a major
pathway.
•
Gathering spaces need to be more inviting and comfortable.
Burt Hill
©Burt Hill 2007
3
3.1 Preface
Upon completion of the program data sheets, a quantified summary of the user
groups’ requests was tabulated. Space planning requests from each focus group
were identified and compared to existing planning configurations and square
footages. To assist the University in determining a building program, the following
tables have been prepared. These tables present the current YSU Kilcawley Center
program components in existing square feet, the proposed program additions, the
difference in net square feet, and the percent change between the existing versus
proposed areas.
The space program summary is a spreadsheet developed to incorporate the
information that was generated in the Discovery Workshops and further discussion
with Kilcawley Center Administrators.
3.2 Space Program
Summary
In reviewing the program, Burt Hill utilized data obtained in the Discovery
Workshops, the meeting with Kilcawley Administrators and meetings with Hunter
Morrison and President Sweet. The result of these meetings was a firm direction to
reorganize the existing Kilcawley Center to better separate the functions of the
Student Center and Conference Center. This would probably best be accomplished
vertically, shifting functions from floor to floor to segregate the two. There is also a
strong desire to “extend Elm Street” through Kilcawley Center visually. The program
responds to requests for modest increases in office space across the board, a larger
ballroom space and some decreases in assembly spaces. This space program
summary becomes a master template for the concept schemes.
Following the summary is a matrix of the benchmarking study conducted by utilizing
the “peer” Universities as identified by the President’s office. It should be noted here
that YSU compares very favorably in terms of the amenities offered by Kilcawley
Center when compared to this group. This parallels the opinions from the Discovery
Workshops, wherein there were few complaints about the types of amenities offered,
but more toward the building layout and lack of extended-hour programming within
the center.
Burt Hill
YSU - Kilcawley Student Center
SPACE PROGRAM SUMMARY
- Building Function
- Subtotal Line
- Information to be Determined
- Potential Shared Space
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
1.91
2.0
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
3.0
3.1
3.2
3.3
4.0
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
5.0
5.1
5.2
Group 1: Kilcawley Administration
Reception
Storage 2074
Conference 2072
Conference 2073
Office 2075
Office 2076
Office 2077
Office 2078
Office 2079
Office 2080
Storage 2081
New Office
SUBTOTAL: Group 1
Existing
SF
Subtotal
Proposed Net SF
% of
New Net Increase Change
SF
Notes
900
75
180
190
156
138
155
138
155
259
100
0
2,446
800
100
200
160
150
150
150
150
150
260
0
150
2,420
-100
25
20
-30
-6
12
-5
12
-5
1
-100
150
-11% Includes desk, file storage & waiting area.
33%
11%
-16%
-4%
9%
-3%
9%
-3%
0%
-100%
100%
487
60
188
157
149
149
192
0
1,382
500
60
200
150
150
120
120
120
1,420
13
0
12
-7
1
-29
-72
120
3%
0%
6%
-4%
1%
-19%
-38%
100%
Group 3: Student Activities
Secretary 2088
Storage 2089
Corridor 2097
Office 2100
New Office
SUBTOTAL: Group 3
149
149
151
260
0
709
150
75
120
200
120
665
1
-74
-31
-60
120
1%
-50%
-21%
-23%
100%
Group 4: Student Government
Common Area 2083
Conference 2090
Conference 2091
President's Office 2092
Office 2098
Office 2099
New Office
SUBTOTAL: Group 4
357
148
149
180
125
140
0
1,099
300
200
120
200
130
130
130
1,210
-57
52
-29
20
5
-10
130
-16%
35%
-19%
11%
4%
-7%
100%
Group 5: Office of Student Diversity
Secretary 2113
Office 2114
Office 2115
New Office
SUBTOTAL: Group 5
380
163
112
0
655
300
160
120
120
700
-80
-3
8
120
-21%
-2%
7%
100%
Group 2: Student Life
Lobby / Corridor 2169
Storage 2182
Office 2084
Office 2085
Office 2086
Office 2087
Office 2101
New Office
SUBTOTAL: Group 2
Burt Hill
- Building Function
- Subtotal Line
Existing
SF
Subtotal
Proposed Net SF
% of
SF
Notes
Group 6: Student Body Offices
Corridor 1055
Office 1055 A
Office 1055 B
Office 1055 C
Office 1055 D
Office 1055 E
Office 1055 F
Office 1055 G
Office 1055 H
Office 1055 I
Office 1055 J
Office 1055 K
Office 1056
Office 1057
New Office
SUBTOTAL: Group 6
312
72
72
72
96
73
58
70
70
68
70
104
79
73
0
1,289
320
100
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
76
1,360
8
28
0
0
-24
-1
14
2
2
4
2
-32
-7
-1
76
Group 7: Public Spaces/Student Lounges
7.00 Waiting Area 2043 A
7.01 Lobby / Corridor 2043
7.02 Schwebel Room 2044
7.03 Computer Lab 1 - 2049
7.04 Computer Lab 1 - 2050
7.05 Information Desk 2051
7.06 Reading Room 2052
7.07 Lounge 1001
7.08 Food court Lobby 1033
7.09 Sitting Area 1052
7.10 Lounge 1054
7.11 Lounge Storage 1054A
7.12 Information Booth 1058
Lounge
SUBTOTAL: Group 7
486
3,218
1,553
480
315
94
1,955
2,512
248
258
1,520
315
100
0
13,054
400
3,000
1,550
900
0
120
2,000
2,500
250
250
0
0
100
2,000
13,070
-86
-218
-3
420
-315
26
45
-12
2
-8
-1,520
-315
0
2,000
-18%
-7%
0%
88%
-100%
28%
2%
0%
1%
-3%
-100% Existing Lounge doesn't work @ current location
-100% Existing Lounge doesn't work @ current location
0%
100% New Lounge
Group 8: Seminars / Conference Rooms
8.00 James Seminar Room 2047
8.01 Bresnahan Computer Lab 2041
8.02 Corridor 2040
8.03 Bresnahan 1 - 2039
8.04 Bresnahan 2 - 2039A
8.05 Bresnahan 3 - 2034
8.06 Bresnahan Storage 2038
8.07 Ohio Room 2059
8.08 Ohio Room Storage 2060 & 2060A
8.09 Stambaugh Room 2057
8.10 Esterly Room 2069
8.11 Seminar Room 2036
8.12 Conference 2067
8.13 Conference 2068
8.14 Training Room 2016
8.15 Jones Rooom 2017
8.16 Pugsley Room 2010 A
8.17 Humphrey Room 2010 B
8.18 Coffelt Room 2010 C
8.19 Conference Room 2020
8.20 Chestnut Room/Auditorium 1005
8.21 Chestnut Room/Auditorium 1005A
8.22 Chestnut Room Storage 1004
8.23 Chestnut Room Lobby 1005 B
8.24 Chestnut Room Lobby 1075
8.25 Chestnut Room Lobby 1005 C
SUBTOTAL: Group 8
1,450
612
230
416
416
411
512
2,433
667
346
588
512
360
956
846
1,216
590
777
690
635
5,151
2,926
483
265
200
467
24,155
1,450
610
230
415
415
410
510
2,435
670
345
590
515
360
960
845
1,215
590
780
690
635
7,000
0
450
450
0
700
23,270
0
-2
0
-1
-1
-1
-2
2
3
-1
2
3
0
4
-1
-1
0
3
0
0
1,849
-2,926
-33
185
-200
233
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
36%
-100%
-7%
70%
-100%
50%
6.0
6.01
6.02
6.03
6.04
6.05
6.06
6.07
6.08
6.09
6.10
6.11
6.12
6.13
3%
39%
0%
0%
-25%
-1%
24%
3%
3%
6%
3%
-31%
-9%
-1%
100%
New Office
Burt Hill
- Building Function
- Subtotal Line
9.00
9.01
9.02
9.03
9.04
9.05
9.06
9.07
9.08
9.09
9.10
9.11
9.12
9.13
9.14
9.15
9.16
9.17
9.18
9.19
9.2
9.21
9.22
9.23
9.24
9.25
9.26
9.27
9.28
9.29
9.30
9.31
9.32
9.33
9.34
10.0
10.1
10.2
10.3
10.4
10.5
10.6
10.7
Existing
SF
Subtotal
Proposed Net SF
% of
SF
Group 9: Food Service
Noodles Restaurant 2001
Noodles Preparation Room 2002
Noodles Storage Room 2003
Kitchen Storage Room 2005
Kitchen 2010 E
Dining Service Office 2014
Dining Service Office 2015
Kitchen 2022
Kitchen Storage 2023
Kitchen Storage 2023A
Kitchen 2024
Kitchen 2025
Kitchen Storage 2026
Kitchen Storage Ramp 2026A
Kitchen Dry Storage 2030
Kitchen 2031
Peaberry's Prep Room 1037
Peaberry's Storage 1043
Peaberry's 1045
Peaberry's Storage 1048
Arby's Counter 1030
Arby's Seating Area 1031
Student Gathering Space
Food Service Storage 1150
Terrace Room 1032
Terrace Prep. 1097
Terrace Prep. 1098
Terrace Prep. 1100
Service Room 1026
Service Room 1027
Service Room 1028
SUBTOTAL: Group 9
3,094
403
160
110
56
52
316
485
176
327
3,332
367
57
197
96
179
307
932
300
987
128
5,682
57
645
6,975
0
52
266
681
4,987
440
138
113
133
89
140
32,459
3,100
400
160
110
50
50
320
485
175
330
3,330
350
50
200
100
180
300
930
300
985
130
4,500
55
650
6,000
4,000
50
265
680
5,000
440
140
110
120
90
140
34,275
6
-3
0
0
-6
-2
4
0
-1
3
-2
-17
-7
3
4
1
-7
-2
0
-2
2
-1,182
-2
5
-975
4,000
-2
-1
-1
13
0
2
-3
-13
1
0
Group 10: Retail
Com Do Copy Center 1051
Com Do Copy Storage 1050
Candy Counter 1061
Candy Counter Storage 1062
Candy Counter Storage 1063
Bank Office 1059
Bank Office 1060
Bank Lobby 1074
Coffee Shop
SUBTOTAL: Group 10
393
535
140
88
50
368
105
200
0
1,879
400
600
200
0
120
370
100
210
500
2,500
7
65
60
-88
70
2
-5
10
500
9,500
9,500
9,500
9,500
Group 11: Center for Student Progress
11.0 Total
LOCATION TO BE DETERMINED
SUBTOTAL: Group 11
0%
-1%
0%
0%
-11%
-4%
1%
0%
-1%
1%
0%
-5%
-12%
2%
4%
1%
-2%
0%
0%
0%
2%
-21%
-4%
1%
-14%
100%
-4%
0%
0%
0%
0%
1%
-3%
-10%
1%
0%
Notes
Located in place of current Chestnut Room
2%
12%
43%
-100%
140%
1%
-5%
5%
100% New coffee shop
*** Grossing factor estimates for support spaces such as restrooms, corridors, stairs, elevators, double story spaces and etc.
Existing Program Subtotal
Grossing Factor of Existing Building
Existing Building Subtotal
Proposed Building Subtotal
Grossing Factor of 47%
Total Proposed Building Square Footage
88,627
47%
130,500
90,390
42,483
132,873
Burt Hill
3.3 Student Center Benchmarking Matrix
Youngstown State
University
Enrollment
Total Square Footage
of the buillding
Current
12,812
131,100 SF
Boise State
University
Completed 1991
Expansion underway
19,000
174,000 SF
Total Construction Cost
Function
Vendor Dining (Food Court)
Branded Food (Mcdonalds)
Full Service / Faculty Dining
Pub
Café/Coffee Shop
Catering
Meeting Room(s)
Ballroom
Multipurpose Room/Student Events
Auditorium
Movie Theater
General Lounge(s)
Study Lounge
TV Lounge
Non-Traditional Student Lounge
Hotel
Convenient Store
Copy Service
Postal Service
Bank
Hair Salon
Cellular Phone Retail
Travel Agent
Box Office
Browsing Library/News Stand
Computer Lab
Bookstore
Fitness Center
Game Room
Bowling
Billards
Chapel/Meditation Room
Gallery
Arts and Crafts Room
Locker Rooms
Student Organizations/Government
University Radio, Video, or Newspaper
Commuter Center
Information / Welcome Desk
Alumni & Development Center(s)
Women's Center
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
17
800
●
●
4
800 Capacity
●
300 Seats
●
●
●
●
Bowling Green
University
Central Connecticut
Cleveland State
University
Northern Kentucky
Oakland University
Wright State
University
New 2002
18,700
Addition 2002
12,000
Fall 2009
15,700
1977, New-2008
14,000
2003
18,000
Completed 1994
17,000
( 100,00 SF new)
215,000 SF total
80,000 SF
120,000 SF +
30,000 SF
192,000 SF
$34 Million
$12 Million
$24 Million
Fundraising
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
12
●
●
600 Capacity
7
13
1300 Capacity
●
250 Seats
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
ATM
●
●
●
●
●
●
20
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
3
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
ATM
●
●
●
●
●
●
ATM
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
Burt Hill
3.3 Student Center Benchmarking Matrix (continued)
Youngstown State
University
University of Akron
University of
Northern Iowa
Truman State
University
Current
12,812
New January 2003
24,360
New - May 2004
13,108
131,100 SF
199,000 SF
34,000 SF addition
$41.1 Million
$13.1 Million
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
17
800
●
●
●
9
250 Capacity
420 Capacity
●
●
Enrollment
Total Square Footage
of the buillding
Total Construction Cost
Function
Vendor Dining (Food Court)
Branded Food (Mcdonalds)
Full Service / Faculty Dining
Pub
Café/Coffee Shop
Catering
Meeting Room(s)
Ballroom
Multipurpose Room/Student Events
Auditorium
Movie Theater
General Lounge(s)
Study Lounge
TV Lounge
Non-Traditional Student Lounge
Hotel
Convenient Store
Copy Service
Postal Service
Bank
Hair Salon
Cellular Phone Retail
Travel Agent
Box Office
Browsing Library/News Stand
Computer Lab
Bookstore
Fitness Center
Game Room
Bowling
Billards
Chapel/Meditation Room
Gallery
Arts and Crafts Room
Locker Rooms
Student Organizations/Government
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
University of
Missouri Columbia
Renovated in 1996
25,384
Existing
22,551
92,000 SF
88,000 SF
275,000 SF
250,000 SF +
$10 Million (1992-1997)
7
310 Capacity
300 Capacity
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
5
240 seats
●
300 seats
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
14
200 Capacity
22
650 Capacity
●
250 Seats
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
University Radio, Video, or Newspaper
Commuter Center
Information / Welcome Desk
Alumni & Development Center(s)
Women's Center
14
600 Capacity
●
350 Seats
Iowa State University
Last Renovation - 1994
6,289
Cincinnati State
Tech. & Community
College
New 2001
8,472
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
Burt Hill
Preliminary Design & Project Scope
©Burt Hill 2007
4
Preliminary Design and Project Scope
4.1 Preface
The provided conceptual drawings and design options were developed to
support the proposed program and assist in its understanding. The following
material illustrates possible space allocations, including typical office, student
activity and lounge plans. The recommended layouts and diagrams are
functionally optimized to focus on adjacency, priority of public / private spaces,
necessity of shared spaces and proximities to exterior. It is important to have a
clear comprehension of how the functions of the student center will work
together and create a vitally active facility.
4.2 Student Center
Planning
Considerations
“Crossroads Planning”
Student centers should take advantage of being located at the intersection of
major pedestrian pathways of a campus. This intersection will become the
“crossroads” of student activity, a place where students can obtain and
exchange information about university campus, dine with one another,
participate in student organizations, relax in open lounges, attend campusrelated meetings, or play recreational games. This central location should be
convenient to campus housing; accessible to both the parking and the
academic core, and integrated with vehicular service routes. The physical
creation of this crossroads planning will ultimately become a place where
students can enrich their social learning experience, the co-curricular of a
university campus.
“Wow Spaces” and “Beacons”
Interviews with students and faculty across the country have taught us that the
initial exterior and interior impression of the student center building is critical for
its success. The exterior should feature a “beacon” that attracts students into
the building, indicate the location of a main entrance, and act as an orientation
point. Use of exterior glass, towers, and framed gateways are all elements that
can draw students into the building.
Interior spaces that evoke a “wow” sensation can be accomplished by a
creation of a central atrium, an interior street, or an enclosed courtyard. Again,
this type of space will act as an orientation and an organizing element.
Student Activity Places
Student activity can be enhanced by strategic placement of auxiliary services
that encourage social interaction. Dining and retail venues can provide visual
and acoustical and olfactory stimulus when located near entrances and can
open up public space at the ground level floor. These visually open places are
where students like to see and to be seen by others.
Revenue Generating Programming
The needs of student center user groups can often be greater than available
funding for the project. On residential campuses revenue generating can be
accomplished by the rental of retail functions such as copy centers, boutiques,
coffee shops, and convenience stores within the student center. In the case of
commuter campuses, revenue generation is far more difficult. At Kilcawley
Center many of these amenities already exist and others are impractical due to
the small residential population and nearby competing amenities.
Smart Programming/Shared facilities
User groups of most building types have a natural tendency to desire dedicated
spaces for their exclusive use. Conference rooms, reception areas,
kitchenettes, resource rooms, and offices are spaces that can be shared by
many users to improve building efficiency. This “smart programming” of spaces
not only saves construction costs, it also encourages social interaction through
the process of sharing space.
Burt Hill
4.3 Design Narratives
Burt Hill was charged with establishing three options for the renovation of
Kilcawley Center. One scheme would seek to address most of the “wish list”
issues developed in the Discovery Workshops. Another would be addressing
the budget limitations set forth by the Trustees funding allocation of $3.5 million.
A third scheme would seek a middle ground, both in terms of cost and viability
given that the center must continue to function during the school year
throughout construction. In each of the schemes budget dollars are allocated
for updating the finishes in all public spaces within Kilcawley Center. In all three
schemes, as discussed with Kilcawley staff, there is no proposed relocation or
renovation of the food service facilities. These currently are well placed within
the building, function adequately and require large expenditures to relocate or
renovate. Additionally, budget dollars are allocated in each scheme to create
screening for the existing loading dock off University Plaza. The loading dock is
also well placed for functionality, but creates an eyesore immediately adjacent
to a primary entrance to the facility.
SCHEME 1
In this scheme we attempt to address the concept of “extending Elm Street”
through the center. One recurring comment in the Discovery Workshops was
the lack of connection to the campus and Kilcawley for students living in Cafaro
and Lyden houses. The current Kilcawley/Bookstore/Rec Center complex
presents a formidable “wall” between those dormitories and the main campus.
A twenty foot wide, two-story open space slices through the building from north
to south on axis with Elm Street, creating a visual link through the building into
the central campus. Visitors will enter from the north through a new beacon
entry located in the northwest corner of the upper level of the existing terraced
food court seating area. A terraced monumental stair will lead them down into
the new student center which flanks a terraced lounge/performance venue, or
they can walk into the conference center on the second level along a wide
walkway overlooking the terraced stair and lounge.
Below, the central circulation space opens into a large two-story student
interaction space where the Chestnut Room formerly resided. This space is
flanked by the food court to the north and large windows to the south, bringing
light into the space and allowing a visual connection to the Quad. To the east is
a secondary entrance that links to the outdoor fountain court. Student Activity
and Student Government Offices move to this level and are clustered on the
west side of the atrium space. On the south side of the building a two-story
entrance faces the Quad. This beacon denotes the extension of the Elm Street
axis through the building, and defines the entrance and location of circulation
from the south side of the building. Additional floor space is reclaimed under
the existing exterior overhang.
A new, larger Chestnut Room moves to the upper floor in space reclaimed from
the open court at the west end of the Center and the relocation of the existing
student offices. The roof will be raised in this area to create a two story space.
This scheme is the most ambitious and most expensive of the schemes,
resulting in the biggest visual impact on the building, with the best
reorganization of space. It also presents the most challenges in construction.
The most significant of these are phasing and crossing the atrium with HVAC,
electrical feeds and plumbing.
Do to the original construction of the building and its additions; much of the
HVAC for the spaces on the west side of atrium comes from mechanical rooms
on the east side of the atrium. Although not insurmountable, the routing of
these services and maintaining of them during construction will present
challenges for the design and construction team as well as additional costs.
Burt Hill
Phasing of construction will also present challenges as the anticipation is to
keep both the student center and conference center functional throughout
construction. Some of this can be accomplished through planning more evasive
work during the summer months, but disruption of some functions (potentially
significant) could occur.
SCHEME 2
This is a more modest approach which opens limited two-story spaces through
a reorganized central spine. This approach may be more easily broken into
phases than Scheme 1, and can be more conveniently worked around the
academic schedule allowing Kilcawley Center to remain functional.
A new entrance and large pre-function space will sit adjacent to the existing
Terrace room. The angled monumental stair in the center of the building will
guide students from the relocated front door and new pre-function space down
into the food court below. The stacked circulation spaces will also help direct
students through the building towards the student spaces, and to the Quad.
The Chestnut room moves upstairs to consolidate the conference functions on
the upper floor as in Scheme 1. The vacated space is used to create a new
student interaction space, with break-out/study rooms built along the perimeter
of the building adjacent to the Quad.
As in Scheme 1, additional floor space is reclaimed under the existing exterior
overhang, to increase the space available for offices. The internal courtyard is
also filled in for office space, and it allows the Center for Student Progress
offices to be accessible directly from inside the Kilcawley Center, similar to
Scheme 1. The building facade of the Center for Student Progress offices is
pushed out on the lower level, to create a reception/lounge area facing the
Quad.
The curved stairs near the Quad are eliminated, and two are reconfigured as
requested and relocated towards the exterior of the building. A wide “beacon”
entry anchors the south side of the building, with one of the replacement stairs
floating in the middle of it.
This scheme encompasses many of the desired elements and objectives
derived from the Discovery Workshops, and successfully in separates the
conference center from the student center. This design will not create the
strong circulation spine or visual connection to the Quad as does Scheme 1,
but it achieves much better organization and clearer circulation than at present.
SCHEME 3
This scheme was designed to more closely respond to the baseline budget as
approved by the Board of Trustees. In this scheme the Chestnut room is not
relocated in an effort to conserve budget dollars.
The open court at the west end of the center is enclosed with clerestories or
skylights to add natural light to a new two-story atrium lounge. As in Scheme 2,
the building facade of the Center for Student Progress offices is also pushed
out on the lower level, to create a reception/lounge area for the offices. Also
similar to Scheme 2, the curved stairs are eliminated and all three are rebuilt
closer to the outside of the building.
The central area around the current Arby’s space is opened up by removing
walls to create a student gathering space and other amenities are reorganized.
Office space along the south wall is relocated and the exterior wall is pushed
out to capture the overhang area, to allow for light penetration into the large
gathering space.
Burt Hill
Due to the budgetary restrains on this design, reorganization of the circulation
was difficult and minimal changes were made. This Scheme does not separate
the conference and student functions and limited reorganization of space
occurred. The entries are re-worked to create “beacon” entries, but this scheme
does not create the two-story “wow” spaces.
Burt Hill
4.5 Cost Summary
YSU - Kilcawley Student Center
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE
Existing Proposed Cost Per
SF
New Net Square
Subtotal
SF
Foot
Scheme 1
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
1.91
2.0
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
3.0
3.1
3.2
3.3
Group 1: Kilcawley Administration
Reception
Storage
Conference
Conference
Office
Office
Office
Office
Office
Office
Storage
Office
SUBTOTAL: Group 1
Group 2: Student Life
Lobby / Corridor
Storage
Office
Office
Office
Office
Office
Office
SUBTOTAL: Group 2
Group 3: Student Activities
Secretary
Storage
Corridor
Office
Office
SUBTOTAL: Group 3
Subtotal
Cost Per
Square Ft
Scheme 1
Cost Per
Square
Foot
Scheme 2
Subtotal
Cost Per
Square Ft
Scheme 2
Net SF
Cost Per
Subtotal
% of
Square
Cost Per Increase Change
Foot
Square Ft
Scheme 3 Scheme 3
900
75
180
190
156
138
155
138
155
259
100
0
2,446
800
100
200
160
150
150
150
150
150
260
0
150
2,420
$75
$0
$75
$75
$75
$75
$75
$75
$75
$75
$75
$75
$60,000
$0
$15,000
$12,000
$11,250
$11,250
$11,250
$11,250
$11,250
$19,500
$0
$11,250
$174,000
$75
$0
$50
$50
$50
$50
$50
$50
$50
$50
$0
$50
$60,000
$0
$10,000
$8,000
$7,500
$7,500
$7,500
$7,500
$7,500
$13,000
$0
$7,500
$136,000
$75
$0
$50
$50
$50
$50
$50
$50
$50
$50
$0
$50
$60,000
$0
$10,000
$8,000
$7,500
$7,500
$7,500
$7,500
$7,500
$13,000
$0
$7,500
$136,000
-100
25
20
-30
-6
12
-5
12
-5
1
-100
150
-26
-11%
33%
11%
-16%
-4%
9%
-3%
9%
-3%
0%
-100%
100%
487
60
188
157
149
149
192
0
1,382
500
60
200
150
150
120
120
120
1,420
$75
$25
$75
$75
$75
$75
$75
$75
$37,500
$1,500
$15,000
$11,250
$11,250
$9,000
$9,000
$9,000
$103,500
$75
$25
$75
$75
$75
$75
$75
$75
$37,500
$1,500
$15,000
$11,250
$11,250
$9,000
$9,000
$9,000
$103,500
$25
$25
$25
$25
$25
$25
$25
$25
$12,500
$1,500
$5,000
$3,750
$3,750
$3,000
$3,000
$3,000
$35,500
13
0
12
-7
1
-29
-72
120
38
3%
0%
6%
-4%
1%
-19%
-38%
100%
149
149
151
260
0
709
150
75
120
200
120
665
$75
$75
$75
$75
$75
$11,250
$5,625
$9,000
$15,000
$9,000
$49,875
$75
$25
$25
$75
$75
$11,250
$1,875
$3,000
$15,000
$9,000
$40,125
$25
$25
$25
$25
$25
$11,250
$5,625
$9,000
$15,000
$9,000
$49,875
1
-74
-31
-60
120
-44
1%
-50%
-21%
-23%
100%
Burt Hill
4.5 Cost Summary
New Net Square
SF
SF
Subtotal
Foot
Scheme 1
Cost Per
Square
Foot
Scheme 2
Subtotal
Cost Per
Square Ft
Scheme 2
Net SF
% of
Cost Per
Subtotal
Square
Foot
Square Ft
Scheme 3 Scheme 3
Group 4: Student Government
Common Area
Conference
Conference
President's Office
Office
Office
Office
SUBTOTAL: Group 4
357
148
149
180
125
140
0
1,099
300
200
120
200
130
130
130
1,210
$75
$75
$75
$75
$75
$75
$75
$22,500
$15,000
$9,000
$15,000
$9,750
$9,750
$9,750
90,750
$75
$75
$75
$75
$75
$75
$75
$22,500
$15,000
$9,000
$15,000
$9,750
$9,750
$9,750
90,750
$25
$25
$25
$25
$25
$25
$25
$7,500
$5,000
$3,000
$5,000
$3,250
$3,250
$3,250
30,250
-57
52
-29
20
5
-10
130
111
-16%
35%
-19%
11%
4%
-7%
100%
Group 5: Office of Student Diversity
Secretary
Office
Office
Office
SUBTOTAL: Group 5
380
163
112
0
655
300
160
120
120
700
$75
$75
$75
$75
$22,500
$12,000
$9,000
$9,000
52,500
$75
$75
$75
$75
$22,500
$12,000
$9,000
$9,000
52,500
$25
$25
$25
$25
$7,500
$4,000
$3,000
$3,000
17,500
-80
-3
8
120
-21%
-2%
7%
100%
Group 6: Student Body Offices
Corridor
Office
Office
Office
Office
Office
Office
Office
Office
Office
Office
Office
Office
Office
Office
SUBTOTAL: Group 6
312
72
72
72
96
73
58
70
70
68
70
104
79
73
0
1,289
320
100
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
76
1,360
$75
$75
$75
$75
$75
$75
$75
$75
$75
$75
$75
$75
$75
$75
$75
$24,000
$7,500
$5,400
$5,400
$5,400
$5,400
$5,400
$5,400
$5,400
$5,400
$5,400
$5,400
$5,400
$5,400
$5,700
102,000
$25
$75
$75
$75
$75
$75
$75
$75
$75
$75
$75
$75
$75
$75
$75
$8,000
$7,500
$5,400
$5,400
$5,400
$5,400
$5,400
$5,400
$5,400
$5,400
$5,400
$5,400
$5,400
$5,400
$5,700
86,000
$25
$25
$25
$25
$25
$25
$25
$25
$25
$25
$25
$25
$25
$25
$25
$8,000
$2,500
$1,800
$1,800
$1,800
$1,800
$1,800
$1,800
$1,800
$1,800
$1,800
$1,800
$1,800
$1,800
$1,900
34,000
8
28
0
0
-24
-1
14
2
2
4
2
-32
-7
-1
76
3%
39%
0%
0%
-25%
-1%
24%
3%
3%
6%
3%
-31%
-9%
-1%
100%
Group 6: Expansion Offices
Expansion Space - Scheme 1
0
0
4,800
4,200
1,560
$75
$0
$360,000
$0
$0
$75
$0
$315,000
$0
$0
$75
$0
$0
$117,000
4,800
4,200
-
SUBTOTAL: Group 6
0
10,560
4.0
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
5.0
5.1
5.2
Subtotal
Cost Per
Square Ft
Scheme 1
6.0
6.01
6.02
6.03
6.04
6.05
6.06
6.07
6.08
6.09
6.10
6.11
6.12
6.13
7.0
7.0a
7.0b
360,000
315,000
117,000
Burt Hill
4.5 Cost Summary
New Net Square
SF
SF
Subtotal
Foot
Scheme 1
Group 7: Public Spaces/Student Lounges
7.00 Waiting Area
7.01 Lobby / Corridor
7.02 Schwebel Room
7.03 Computer Lab 1
7.04 Computer Lab 1
7.05 Information Desk
7.06 Reading Room
7.07 Lounge
7.08 Food Court Lobby
7.09 Seating Area
7.10 Watson Tressel Lounge
7.11 ComputerLounge - Scheme 3
7.12 Information Booth
7.13 Atrium Lounge -Scheme 3
7.14 Atrium - Scheme 1
7.15 Restrooms -New
7.15a Restrooms - Remodel
SUBTOTAL: Group 7
486
3,218
1,553
480
315
94
1,955
2,512
248
258
1,520
0
100
0
0
0
1,000
12,739
29,000
Group 8: Seminars / Conference Rooms
8.00 James Seminar Room
8.01 Bresnahan Computer Lab
8.02 Corridor
8.03 Bresnahan 1
8.04 Bresnahan 2
8.05 Bresnahan 3
8.06 Bresnahan Storage
8.07 Ohio Room
8.08 Ohio Room Storage
8.09 Stambaugh Room
8.10 Esterly Room
8.11 2036 Seminar Room
8.12 2067 Conference
8.13 2068 Conference
8.14 Training Room
8.15 Jones Rooom
8.16 Pugsley Room
8.17 Humphrey Room
8.18 Coffelt Room
8.19 Conference Room
8.20 Chestnut Room
8.21 Chestnut Room/Annex
8.22 Chestnut Room Storage
8.23 Chestnut Room Lobby
8.24 New North Entry/Prefunction
SUBTOTAL: Group 8
1,450
612
230
416
416
411
512
2,433
667
346
588
512
360
956
846
1,216
590
777
690
635
5,151
2,926
483
265
0
23,488
1,450
610
230
800
415
410
510
2,435
670
345
590
515
360
960
845
1,215
590
780
690
635
9,360
0
450
450
4,256
29,571
400
3,000
3,016
900
0
120
2,000
2,500
250
250
432
6,464
100
2,688
6,880
1,300
Net SF
% of
Cost Per
Subtotal
Square
Foot
Square Ft
Scheme 3 Scheme 3
Subtotal
Cost Per
Square Ft
Scheme 1
Cost Per
Square
Foot
Scheme 2
Subtotal
Cost Per
Square Ft
Scheme 2
$75
$0
$75
$75
$100
$150
$75
$100
$0
$100
$0
$0
$75
$75
$200
$300
$0
$36,450
$0
$226,200
$36,000
$31,500
$14,100
$146,625
$251,200
$0
$25,800
$0
$0
$7,500
$0
$1,376,000
$390,000
$0
2,151,375
$75
$75
$75
$75
$100
$100
$75
$100
$100
$50
$75
$75
$50
$75
$75
$300
$75
$36,450
$241,350
$43,200
$36,000
$31,500
$9,400
$146,625
$251,200
$24,800
$12,900
$32,400
$0
$5,000
$0
$0
$240,000
$75,000
870,825
$75
$50
$35
$25
$25
$100
$35
$50
$50
$50
$50
$50
$50
$250
$0
$0
$150
$36,450
$160,900
$54,355
$12,000
$7,875
$9,400
$68,425
$125,600
$12,400
$12,900
$76,000
$323,200
$5,000
$672,000
$0
$0
$150,000
1,576,505
-86
-218
1,463
420
-315
26
45
-12
2
-8
-1,088
6,464
0
2,688
6,880
1,300
-1,000
-18%
-7%
94%
88%
-100%
28%
2%
0%
1%
-3%
-72%
0%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
$25
$0
$25
$75
$75
$75
$25
$25
$0
$0
$50
$25
$25
$25
$25
$25
$25
$25
$25
$25
$250
$0
$0
$0
$36,250
$0
$5,750
$60,000
$31,125
$30,750
$12,750
$60,875
$0
$0
$29,500
$12,875
$9,000
$24,000
$21,125
$30,375
$14,750
$19,500
$17,250
$15,875
$2,340,000
$0
$0
$0
$25
$25
$25
$50
$50
$75
$25
$25
$0
$25
$25
$25
$25
$25
$25
$25
$25
$25
$25
$25
$250
$36,250
$15,250
$5,750
$40,000
$20,750
$30,750
$12,750
$60,875
$0
$8,625
$14,750
$12,875
$9,000
$24,000
$21,125
$30,375
$14,750
$19,500
$17,250
$15,875
$2,340,000
$0
$67,500
$67,500
$1,064,000
3,949,500
$25
$25
$25
$35
$35
$35
$25
$25
$0
$25
$25
$25
$25
$25
$25
$25
$25
$25
$25
$25
$50
$35
$50
$50
$200
$36,250
$15,250
$5,750
$14,560
$14,525
$14,350
$12,750
$60,875
$0
$8,625
$14,750
$12,875
$9,000
$24,000
$21,125
$30,375
$14,750
$19,500
$17,250
$15,875
$257,550
$102,410
$22,500
$22,500
$851,200
1,618,595
0
-2
0
384
-1
-1
-2
2
3
-1
2
3
0
4
-1
-1
0
3
0
0
4,209
-2,926
-33
185
4,256
0%
0%
0%
92%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
82%
-100%
-7%
70%
0%
2,771,750
$150
$150
$250
Burt Hill
4.5 Cost Summary
New Net Square
SF
SF
Subtotal
Foot
Scheme 1
9.00
9.01
9.02
9.03
9.04
9.05
9.06
9.07
9.08
9.09
9.10
9.11
9.12
9.13
9.14
9.15
9.16
9.17
9.18
9.19
9.20
9.21
9.22
9.23
9.24
9.25
9.25
9.26
9.27
9.28
9.28a
9.29
9.30
9.31
9.32
9.33
9.34
Group 9: Food Service
Noodles Restaurant
Noodles Preparation Room
Noodles Storage Room
Kitchen Storage Room
Kitchen
Dining Service Office
Dining Service Office
Kitchen
Kitchen Storage
Kitchen Storage
Kitchen
Kitchen
Kitchen Storage
Kitchen Storage Ramp
Kitchen Dry Storage
Kitchen
Peaberry's Prep Room
Peaberry's Storage
Peaberry's
Peaberry's Storage
Food Court Counter
KC/Arby's Food Court Seating Area
New Tenant's Seating Area
Food Court Storage
Food Court Storage
Food Court Storage
Terrace Room
Terrace Lounge (Scheme 1 only)
Terrace Prep.
Terrace Prep
Terrace Prep.
Service Room
Service Room
Service Room
SUBTOTAL: Group 9
3,094
403
160
110
56
52
316
485
176
327
3,332
367
57
197
96
179
307
932
300
987
128
5,682
57
645
6,975
0
52
266
681
4,987
4,987
440
138
113
133
89
140
37,446
3,100
400
160
110
50
50
320
485
175
330
3,330
350
50
200
100
180
300
930
300
985
130
4,500
55
650
6,975
4,000
50
265
680
5,000
5,000
440
140
110
120
90
140
40,250
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$50
$25
$50
$25
$100
$0
$125
$0
$0
$0
$0
$250
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Subtotal
Cost Per
Square Ft
Scheme 1
Cost Per
Square
Foot
Scheme 2
Subtotal
Cost Per
Square Ft
Scheme 2
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$49,250
$3,250
$225,000
$1,375
$65,000
$0
$500,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,250,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2,093,875
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$50
$25
$50
$25
$100
$125
$125
$0
$0
$0
$35
$0
$125
$125
$125
$125
$125
$125
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$49,250
$3,250
$225,000
$1,375
$65,000
$871,875
$500,000
$0
$0
$0
$175,000
$0
$55,000
$17,500
$13,750
$15,000
$11,250
$17,500
2,020,750
Net SF
% of
Cost Per
Subtotal
Square
Foot
Square Ft
Scheme 3 Scheme 3
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$50
$25
$25
$25
$0
$75
$0
$0
$0
$0
$25
$0
$25
$25
$50
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$49,250
$3,250
$142,050
$1,375
$0
$523,125
$0
$0
$0
$0
$125,000
$0
$11,000
$3,500
$5,500
$0
$0
$0
864,050
6
-3
0
0
-6
-2
4
0
-1
3
-2
-17
-7
3
4
1
-7
-2
0
-2
2
-1,182
-2
5
0
4,000
-2
-1
-1
13
13
0
2
-3
-13
1
0
0%
-1%
0%
0%
-11%
-4%
1%
0%
-1%
1%
0%
-5%
-12%
2%
4%
1%
-2%
0%
0%
0%
2%
-21%
-4%
1%
0%
100%
-4%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
1%
-3%
-10%
1%
0%
Burt Hill
4.5 Cost Summary
New Net Square
SF
SF
Subtotal
Foot
Scheme 1
10.0
10.1
10.2
10.3
10.4
10.5
10.6
10.7
Group 10: Retail
Com Doc
Com Doc Storage
Candy Counter
Candy Counter Storage
Candy Counter Storage
Bank Office
Bank Office
Bank Lobby
Coffee Shop
SUBTOTAL: Group 10
Total Cost of Programming Space
Lump Sum Allowances
Selective Demolition
Allowance for Phasing
Decorative Enclosure at Loading Dock
Serpentine Curtain Wall at Overhang
Straight Curtain Wall at Overhang
Corridor finishes (1300 lf +)
Replace Stairs
Technology Upgrades/Relocation
Entrances with Glass Towers
Total Hard Cost
Soft Costs @ 30%
Grand Total
393
535
140
88
50
368
105
200
0
400
600
200
0
120
370
100
210
500
1,879
2,500
$0
$0
$75
$25
$25
$75
$75
$100
$100
Subtotal
Cost Per
Square Ft
Scheme 1
Cost Per
Square
Foot
Scheme 2
Subtotal
Cost Per
Square Ft
Scheme 2
$0
$0
$15,000
$0
$3,000
$27,750
$7,500
$21,000
$50,000
$75
$25
$75
$25
$25
$75
$75
$100
$100
$30,000
$15,000
$15,000
$0
$3,000
$27,750
$7,500
$21,000
$50,000
Net SF
% of
Cost Per
Subtotal
Square
Foot
Square Ft
Scheme 3 Scheme 3
$0
$0
$25
$25
$25
$25
$50
$50
$25
$0
$0
$5,000
$2,200
$3,000
$9,250
$5,000
$10,500
$12,500
124,250
8,073,875
169,250
7,834,200
47,450
4,526,725
1,500,000
2,018,469
40,000
157,000
0
292,500
0
600,000
240,000
1,000,000
1,566,840
40,000
0
93,000
195,000
75,000
300,000
180,000
500,000
362,138
40,000
0
93,000
195,000
75,000
300,000
120,000
12,921,844
3,876,553
11,284,040
3,385,212
6,211,863
1,863,559
$16,798,397
$14,669,252
$8,075,422
7
65
60
-88
70
2
-5
10
500
2%
12%
43%
-100%
140%
1%
-5%
5%
100%
*** Grossing factor estimates for support spaces such as restrooms, corridors, stairs, elevators, double story spaces and etc.
Burt Hill
Appendix
©Burt Hill 2007
5
3700 Park East Drive, Suite 200
Cleveland, OH 44122
tel: 216-454-2150
fax: 216-454-9995
www.burthill.com
MEETING MINUTES
From: Michael Reagan
October12, 2006
Subject/Project Number:
YSU - Kilcawley Center Renovation/Expansion Study
Meeting Number:
Meeting Date:
Project Phase:
Meeting Location:
Contracted Services
10/9/2006
Programming
Kilcawley Center
Meeting Purpose:
Programming
Attendees:
Distribution:
Contracted Services
Tom Totterdale - Sodexho Tom
Chris Cole - Peaberry
Mark Cole -Peaberry and Arby’s
Chris Heston - Arby’s
Ron Navarra - Comdox
Tim Gintect - Comdoc
All Attendees
Matt Novotny
Burt Hill
David Hatton
Mike Carter
Michael Reagan
Comments:
1. DH reviewed the overall process and goals for this meeting.
2. The comments regarding what is liked about Kilcawley were summarized as follows:
•
One good thing is the location of Kilcawley since it is on the North Side of campus between the residence
halls and the campus. The connections to the fitness center is beneficial since it provides additional
pedestrian traffic. The number and variety of room types provide flexibility is booking different types of
events. It is generally easy to find functions in Kilcawley.
• The seating areas in the food court and in Arby’s is about right. Meal Plan student generally fill seats in
Marketplace at lunch time.
• Operations at Noodles now include breakfast and lunch. Noodles does reasonably well for the short time it
is open.
3. The comments regarding what is not liked about Kilcawley were summarized as follows:
•
One undesirable aspect is that the functions on one level are not generally recognized by users on the other
level. Kilcawley Center is not very open and access to daylight is very limited. No designated parking for
functions. Lack of parking is not conducive to community interactions. Restaurant marketing is difficult
without accessible parking. Problems exist with the temperature control of the various rooms. The HVAC
q:\project\0607800\2 corr\meeting minutes- contracted services .doc
Page 1 of 2
zoning needs to be corrected. Ventilation in copy center and food service needs to be considered. Water
penetration problems exist in various parts of the north side of the building.
• An additional undesirable element is Kilcawley shuts down in the evening, and weekends.
• Comments from commuters is there is nothing in the building they need. There is no real draw for
commuters. Entertainment is provided at lunch time but it only gets limited attendance.
• Kilcawley only gets limited traffic in the evenings and so a dinner service may not be able to be supported.
Noodles does not currently serve outside on patio so it gets limited use. Half of operations is from meal
card students and the other half is from from cash/credit cards. No place to have private lunch meeting.
• Arby’s operation drops off after 2:00 PM. Ideally more dinner traffic could be generated. Better access will
help but other reasons are needed for people to be here. Generally there is a loss of revenue on weekends
and in evenings.
4. The comments regarding what should be included in a renovated Kilcawley Center were summarized as follows:
•
Better organization of elements in servery would be desirable.. Size of Peaberry’s OK but different
organization (one major seating area may be desirable). Size of Arby’s is OK and a combined seating area
may work. Production area in Arby’s is acceptable but reorganization would be needed. Entrance at
ConDoc could benefit from more space like a waiting room and larger entry door. A little more back office
space in Con Doc would be desirable. Peaberry’s could use one large securable storage area. More
freezer space at Sedexho kitchen is needed.
• Designated parking would be desirable.
• A renovated Kilcawley Cnter would benefit from some two story spaces that would allow people to see more
of the building. Need a central open space that is the meeting point. Building needs to be more inviting.
• It would be desirable to enclose the outdoor area near Peaberry’s. Tables near Peaberry’s get limited
(seasonal) use now. More advertisement on outside of building (retail approach) would help. An attractive
place to hang-out would help.
• An additional loading dock would be desirable. Trucks get backed up now. Sedexho delivers daily.
Freight elevator needs to be serviced or replaced. No clear walk space to kitchen elevator. Delivery path
would be ideal for contracted services. Paper (4,000 pounds) is currently delivered through student spaces.
• Other retail operations might enhance existing operations. Better information on existing computer labs
would be desirable.
• A news stand would be desirable.
• A game room with video games would be desirable to supplement pool tables and air hockey.
• Conference rooms could be used for classes when conference rooms are not in use to bring people into the
building.
• A private faculty/staff lunch room may be desirable.
• More events would generate more traffic.
5. Some of the things that should not be forgotten include the following:
•
The renovated Kilcawley center should be more inviting, have better advertising, make places easier to find,
and a centralized approach to student services.
This memorandum represents our understanding of the events that transpired and the actions that were taken. If they do
not conform to a recipient’s understanding, prompt written notice must be communicated to the writer. If no corrections
or objections are made, this memorandum will be relied upon as a factual interpretation of this meeting.
Submitted by,
BURT HILL
/s/
Profile Building
October 9, 2006
q:\project\0607800\2 corr\meeting minutes- contracted services .doc
Page 2 of 2
Cleveland, OH 44122
tel: 216-454-2150
fax: 216-454-9995
www.burthill.com
MEETING MINUTES
October 12, 2006
Meeting Number:
Meeting Date:
Project Phase:
Meeting Location:
M-2 Residence Hall Staff
10/9/2006
Programming
Kilcawley Center
Meeting Purpose:
Programming
Attendees:
Distribution:
YSU
Danielle Meyer
Josh Mays
Maria Gronhaus
Jacqueline Clifson
Corey Rich
Ian Tanner
All Attendees
Matt Novotny - YSU
Burt Hill
David Hatton
Mike Carter
Michael Reagan
Comments:
1. DH reviewed the overall process and goals for this meeting. DH noted the next step in the process will be to
create a preliminary facility program and vision for the student center renovations.
2. The comments received from the Visual Listening exercise yielded the following comments:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Image #1 Don’t like it because it looks too comfortable and too intimate. Like it because it looks like a
nice place to study.
Image #2 Like lit because it looks light and airy, you can see outside. It looks like it should be connected to
Fitness Center.
Image #3 Don’t like it because it looks too clean.
Image #4 Looks like Chili’s; looks like manufactured comfort. Looks like it is trying too hard to be unique.
Image #5 Looks like a place to hang out. Brings everything around it into it. Like because of distant views
and potential for interaction.
Image #7 Like style of architecture; it looks clean; it is OK if it is a little formal; need to find balance
between modern and traditional.
Image #8 Does not look urban.
Image #9 Like it because it provides spaces out side for dining, eating, and meeting. Don’t like lamp
shades, and angular design elements.
q:\project\0607800\2 corr\meeting minutes- residence staff .doc
Page 1 of 3
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Image #10 Looks too rustic. Does not feel like it belongs to Kilcawley. Like the windows but study rooms
should not be too bright.
Image #11 Don’t like because it looks too much like a mall. Like 2 story space and views throughout.
Image #12 Don’t like because it looks too commercial. Looks cheesy.
Image #13 Like because 2 story space modern, clean without being fussy, Don’t want fancy but want
clean and modern.
Image #14 Don’t like because it looks like old design.
Image #15 Like because it is very warm and transparent.
Image #16 Generally don’t like.
Image #17 Don’t like because it does not seem inviting, it does not say “come in and play”. Like it
because it is simple and elegant. Like it because it is a reasonable compromise.
Image #18 Like it because of protected walk areas.
Image #19 Like openness, windows, even at light. Like outdoor seating.
Image #20 Don’t like because it looks like a courthouse. Like it because it looks like it belongs on campus
connecting 2 buildings.
3. The comments regarding what is liked about Kilcawley were summarized as follows:
•
•
•
Good location.
Chestnut room functionality works well, can accommodate large groups.
Some elements are convenient. Almost one-stop shopping but could be better.
4. The comments regarding what is not liked about Kilcawley are summarized as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Not enough windows and daylight.
Don’t like the Chestnut Room décor.
Feels like a conference center and not a student center.
No rhyme or reason to locations for functions.
Too many entrances that lead to same place.
No easy way to get through from one side to another.
Wheel chair access through is not good.
International lounge is not large enough.
Conference rooms are underutilized when not scheduled.
No life in building after hours. (partially related to student population-partially related to quality of student
center).
Seating in Food Court insufficient. (Some get food at Food Court and eat in Arby’s.)
Don’t like having to go through spaces to get to another. (e.g.: through bookstore to get to convenience
store)
5. The comments regarding what should be included in a renovated Kilcawley Center are summarized as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
24 hour computer labs especially for commuters.
Movie theater for 50 - 100 people.
More access to daylight and better lighting in general especially at food court.
24/7 access to building especially for food service.
Nice place to hang out with TV with ability to change channels.
Night life area where things get checked out such as pool tables, foosball, etc.
Better visibility throughout(Don’t know what all is here)
Locate all student services, functions, activities on one floor and provide better separation of conference
center from student areas.
Consolidation of all offices.
Add another level for offices.
Provide a Greek hallway for Chapter offices.
Would like to see more students hanging out in student center.
Page 2 of 3
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Would like a place to hang out especially for commuters and night class students.
Additional student parking nearby.
Outdoor seating and tables especially if near fountain.
North side of Kilcawley needs some improvement to aesthetics.
More landscaping on North side.
South elevations aesthetics need improvements.
Health Center should be in Kilcawley.
Art Gallery so can display art in more places than Bliss Hall.
Convenience store that can be used by student meal plan.
6. Things to remember when planning the Kilcawley Center renovations include the following:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Open and student friendly inviting open, stuff to do and spaces to congregate.
Provide windows and natural light.
Less brown paint and concrete.
Greek hallway.
Suitable for urban setting.
Name should be Student Union and Conference Center and not Student Center.
Submitted by,
BURT HILL
/s/
Profile Building
October 9, 2006
Page 3 of 3
Cleveland, OH 44122
tel: 216-454-2150
fax: 216-454-9995
www.burthill.com
MEETING MINUTES
October 12, 2006
Meeting Number:
Meeting Date:
Project Phase:
Meeting Location:
M-3 Faculty
10/9/2006
Programming
Kilcawley Center
Meeting Purpose:
Programming
Attendees:
Distribution:
YSU
Arlene Floyd
Mary Lou DiPillo
Sherry Linkon
Mary Lou Puskar
Christine Shelton
All Attendees
Matt Novotny - YSU
Burt Hill
David Hatton
Mike Carter
Michael Reagan
Comments:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Image #2 Don’t like because it looks like a waste of space but OK for corridor.
Image #3 Like because it looks efficient. Don’t like because it looks cold.
Image #4 Like because looks like a nice comfortable place for business executives. Don’t like because it
looks like fabricated and too dark.
Image #5 Like because it is open and can see from one area to another. Sense of visual connectivity
Image #6 Like because it is open.
Image #7 Like because it is open and comfortable, cozy. Don’t like because too open and potential for
lack of privacy. Like because it is light and airy.
Image #8 Like because seating looks comfortable for outdoor seating.
Image #9 Like because of transparency, able to look outside, place to sit.
Image #10 Like because of transparency, able to look outside, looks cozy. Don’t like because furniture
looks too difficult to move.
Image #11 Like because large space could be used for anything. Don’t like sign.
q:\project\0607800\2 corr\meeting minutes- faculty-staff .doc
Page 1 of 3
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Image #12 Like because interior offices could get light. Don’t like because it looks like factory and
windows too small.
Image #13 Don’t like because it looks too commercial.
Image #14 Don’t like because it looks too cluttered.
Image #15 Like because 2 storey space looks open. Glass all around so you see out. Could address
large crowd from above.
Image #16 Looks to narrow even though it could be done on Kilcawley. Looks too institutional.
Image #17 Looks like it would not be much of an improvement.
Image #18 Like because good access for vehicular drop off.
Image #19 Like because light. Like a lot of glass, could imagine going this to Kilcawley. Looks inviting
and welcoming.
Image #20 Looks like typical college building but you want to be different. It looks like just a building.
3. The comments regarding what is liked about Kilcawley are summarized as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Location centrally located on campus. Like flexibility. Different spaces can be used in different ways.
Like access to food. Attached housing provides good access for residents.
Like because it is used by faculty and student s in a variety of ways. Getting more use of different kinds
more and more.
Chestnut Room is flexible for its size (but needs to be bigger)
The computer rooms are liked.
The Art Displays are liked.
Like connections to Fitness Center and Recreation Center.
Existing Kilcawley Center gets used by many people
•
•
•
•
Chestnut Room needs to be larger.
Eating areas are too dark.
Kilcawley Center lounge is not efficient in terms of service.
Kilcawley Center forms a barrier between campus and north side resident halls with no clear through way
especially when carrying things and wheelchair bound individuals.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Provide drop off for vehicles with turn around.
Provide movie Theater and other Student Union functions.
More light more windows.
Eating areas with more light.
Food Market layout.
Need flexible rooms.
Add another level so Kilcawley Center is 3 stories.
Provide ballroom with escalator access.
Provide space for disability services, math and writing center.
Provide one-stop shopping maybe locate other services near Student Progress.
Provide classroom space.
Provide Multi-Purpose Room that is 25% - 50% larger than current Chestnut Room. 700 people should be
accommodated in banquet style seating.
•
Provide more daylight (or at least high ceilings with more light) and create better throughway for campus
traffic. More student oriented spaces.
Page 2 of 3
Submitted by,
BURT HILL
/s/
Profile Building
October 9, 2006
Page 3 of 3
Cleveland, OH 44122
tel: 216-454-2150
fax: 216-454-9995
www.burthill.com
MEETING MINUTES
October 12, 2006
Meeting Number:
Meeting Date:
Project Phase:
Meeting Location:
M-4 Student Government
10/9/2006
Programming
Kilcawley Center
Meeting Purpose:
Programming
Attendees:
Distribution:
YSU
Shanna Kelley
Amber Patrick
Paul Brenner
All Attendees
Matt Novotny - YSU
Burt Hill
David Hatton
Mike Carter
Michael Reagan
Comments:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Image #1 Like cozy warm feeling space. Don’t like it because it looks like a dorm.
Image #2 Like it because it is open. Like the daylight, like the views outside.
Image #3 Don’t like because it looks too industrial and not comfortable. Too Jetson-like.
Image #4 Like it because it is wood . Don’t like it because it looks like too much like a lodge in the
country.
Image #5 Like because it looks fun with more exciting furniture.
Image #6 Like because it is open; like the fireplace; like balcony above.
Image #7 Like it because it has more class and it is open and well lit.
Image #8 Don’t like it because of limited use as a result of weather.
Image #10 Like more traditional look with wood.
Image #11 Don’t like it because it looks like a mall, too commercial, too cold.
q:\project\0607800\2 corr\meeting minutes- student government .doc
Page 1 of 3
•
•
•
•
•
Image #16 Don’t like it because it is too straight.
Image #17 Like because of glass on front. Looks welcoming.
Image #18 Like the brick. Don’t like it because it does not look fun and welcoming.
Image #19 Like it because of glass on front. It looks welcoming.
Image #20 Unanimously don’t like.
•
•
•
•
Some of the lounges are not too bad like Schwebels Reception Lounge with big overstuffed chairs.
Like the Bookstore.
The location is OK generally centralized.
Route through Kilcawley is OK when using stair near Bookstore.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Don’t like having Kilcawley center attached to Kilcawley House.
Don’t like closed in feeling without windows and light.
Not welcoming.
Not accessible.
Feel like a rat in a maze.
Difficult to find your way around.
Food in food court is better than last year.
Hours of operation are not ideal for those on campus.
Don’t go there unless you have to.
Hard to get through food court at Kilcawley at lunch time and seating is limited.
Arby’s is sometimes overcrowded as well.
Don’t know when rooms are open and when they are not such as Schwebel Lounge and Computer Rooms.
Seems like a conference center with some inadequate student spaces.
Lighting throws people off given low level even when open.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Places to sit and relax.
Needs to be more open (visually and welcoming).
More open area.
Tutoring Center.
Math and Writing Center.
Disability Services.
Health Services.
Bigger screens for electronic bulletin boards in better places where you are not going to get run over.
More convenient hours eg: something open late like a grab and go.
Clearly separate conference center spaces from student spaces.
Breezeway for students to get through Kilcawley for student s from student residences to the north.
Lockers would be useful especially for commuters.
Movie Theater.
6. Thing to remember when planning the Kilcawley renovations include the following:
•
•
•
Building must be more welcoming.
Hours of operation need to be extended.
Student events for evening student activities
Page 2 of 3
Submitted by,
BURT HILL
/s/
Profile Building
October 9, 2006
Page 3 of 3
Cleveland, OH 44122
tel: 216-454-2150
fax: 216-454-9995
www.burthill.com
MEETING MINUTES
October 12, 2006
Meeting Number:
Meeting Date:
Project Phase:
Meeting Location:
T-1 Student Life
10/10/2006
Programming
Kilcawley Center
Meeting Purpose:
Programming
Attendees:
Distribution:
YSU
Carrie Anderson - Student Activities
Greg Gulas - Student Activities
Pat Shively - Center for Student Progress
Joy Polkabla Byers - Campus Recreation
Matt Morrone - Campus Recreation
Marty Manning - Student Life
Jack Rigney - Campus Recreation
William J. Blake - Student Diversity
All Attendees
Matt Novotny - YSU
Burt Hill
David Hatton
Mike Carter
Michael Reagan
Comments:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Image #1 Don’t like because it looks too quiet.
Image #2 Unanimously liked because it is open, connection to outside and patio. Liked because it is
modern.
Image #3 Don’t like because it is too institutional; too contemporary; too sterile.
Image #4 Too dark too rustic does not look inviting for noise.
Image #5 Like because it looks like it would be good usable space for programs such as an oxygen bar
but also with small group areas for team work opportunities.
Image #6 Liked because ability to engage different levels in facility. Liked because it looks like it is a
student service friendly. Services look like they would be easily seen. Like windows with natural light.
Didn’t like because it looks like a cafeteria.
Image #7 Looks like a dorm too formal.
q:\project\0607800\2 corr\meeting minutes- student life.doc
Page 1 of 3
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Image #8 Like outside component but architecture does not fit the YSU campus.
Image #9 Don’t like because it looks like a restaurant in a hotel.
Image #10 Like it because it is contemporary.
Image #11 Almost unanimous liked the glass and seeing multiple levels.
Image #12 Didn’t like because looks too narrow.
Image #13 Liked because of electronic communication potential.
Image #14 Didn’t like because it looks like a cruise ship. Like because it looks like it provides options
Image #15 Liked because it looks like an active space. Like because of program opportunities. Looks like
what Akron U did at their Student Union. Don’t like it because it looks like the openness may not be as
useful. Like because 2 story space opens up programming possibilities. Like it because looks like a mall
and not so academic looking.
Image #16 Unanimously disliked. Looks like not useful given the cost.
Image #17 Some liked some did not.
Image #18 Most disliked one liked.
Image #19 Like because it is inviting and welcoming.
Image #20 Like because it draws you in. Like because it looks like a fitness center.
•
•
•
Schwebel Lounge gets good use and it is quiet.
Kilcawley Center is well maintained ans till the hub of activities given the location. Can accommodate
many different functions and uses; versatile.
Like the art display; nice mix historical and contemporary.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Too compartmentalized; feels like a maze.
Is no longer a hub of activities seems like a conference center.
No prominent entrance.
Has 70’s look event though well maintained, colors are too dark.
Not enough windows and access to daylight.
No inviting entrances on north or south side.
Lacks central programming spaces.
Gets too crowded when programming events.
Southeast corner is dead corner.
Lounges near Kilcawley House are too dark.
Smoking area near Kilcawley House.
Lack of use of technology.
Dead space in Peaberry in the back (flooding problems).
5. The comments regarding what should be included in a renovated Kilcawley Center are summarized as follows :
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Central programming space.
Efficient floor plan with 2 story spaces
Need programming and promotional space for recruiting.
Electronic bulletin boards to replace regular bulletin board.
Central information with person and electronic kiosk.
Computers for student access to check email, etc.
Nearby parking and vehicular access to front door.
Need equipment access to stage area.
Bigger offices.
Central student affairs area.
More student organization space with access to daylight.
More multipurpose auditorium, space for movies and other uses (with retractable seating).
Page 2 of 3
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
More offices.
2 big and 2 small areas for student activities.
Need reception area for Student Progress and closer to the hub; less remote maybe 25 % more space.
More inviting reception, need storage, 1 or 2 offices plus conference.
Larger conference room for fitness center.
Less scheduling conflicts with conference center (for instance, April 17 is fully booked for Press Day)
Need more leisure recreation for table tennis air hockey, etc.
Separate and balance needs of conference center and student center.
Better coordination of Fitness Center and Student Center.
Dedicated student organization space.
Better waiting area for Diversity Offices.
Submitted by,
BURT HILL
/s/
Page 3 of 3
Cleveland, OH 44122
tel: 216-454-2150
fax: 216-454-9995
www.burthill.com
MEETING MINUTES
October 12, 2006
Meeting Number:
Meeting Date:
Project Phase:
Meeting Location:
T-2 Kilcawley Staff
10/10/2006
Programming
Kilcawley Center
Meeting Purpose:
Programming
Attendees:
Distribution:
YSU
Kathy Leeper - Graphics Services Corrdinator
Rachel Durochia - Graphic Artist (Part Time)
John Young - Associate Director Kilcawley Center
Lynn Haug - Kilcawley Retail Operations Manager
Eva Gucwa - YSU Bookstore Merchandising Coordinator
Chris Pullium - Conference Services Coordinator
Pat Taylor - Bookeeper
All Attendees
Matt Novotny - YSU
Burt Hill
David Hatton
Mike Carter
Michael Reagan
Comments:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Image #1 Looks good for a dormitory but not for a student center.
Image #2 Unanimously liked because it is open and light with nice outdoor space but still cozy and not
vacuous. Like the lighting and like the curve.
Image #3 Looks too dark. Too institutional.
Image #4 looks too much like a lodge. Looks too dark.
Image #5 Looks too small for space. Welcomes too few people. Prefer more places to land and the
space needs to be warmer.
Image #6 Unanimously liked because of combination of seating area and large program area.
Image #7 Feels too formal.
Image #8 Too colonial looking for YSU but outdoor seating is good.
Image #9 Like because of light. Like stonework because it makes you feel grounded.
Image #10 Looks too much like faculty oriented space.
q:\project\0607800\2 corr\meeting minutes- kilcawley staff.doc
Page 1 of 3
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Image #11 Looks too much like mall, too many people too loud.
Image #12 Looks too sterile and too cold. Looks like a mall similar to a galleria.
Image #13 Don’t like because it looks like an airport. Too sterile.
Image #14 Don’t like (unanimously).
Image #15 Like open feeling and views to other spaces, looks welcoming and comfortable but without
taking up too much space. Don’t like because there was no place to land with too much circulation space.
Not cozy.
Image #16 Universally disliked but looks like entry to bookstore and fitness center. Too imposing.
Image #17 Like because it matches style of Bookstore.
Image #18 Liked the covered walkway to entry. Like beacon aspect of entry.
Image #19 Most everyone liked because it looks like a main entrance that Kilcawley Center currently lacks.
Like because it looks like other entries at Bookstore and Fitness Center.
Image #20 Don’t like because it looks like a hospital. Glass area is liked.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The quality of the service provided by the Kilcawley Staff.
Convenience of bank - services are well used by students and Kilcawley staff.
Access to Travel Agency even though it serves athletic department needs more than students.
Like the central location with residence halls to north and academic buildings south.
Like openness of information desk.
Separate food areas so crowds, noise, and commotion are managed.
Like candy counter.
Like different conference room themes.
4. The comments regarding what is not liked about Kilcawley aree summarized as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Nice furniture is often damaged or moved.
Individuals with disabilities have difficulty accessing Kilcawley.
Not enough restrooms.
No real food options that attract students.
Peaberry’s is underutilized.
Moisture problems in Peaberry’s on west wall.
Much of the north wall is experiencing moisture problems.
Sound problems when Peaberry’s has loud event.
5. What should be included in the renovated Kilcawley Center?
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Each conference room should have its own AV equipment.
The conference center restrooms should be separate from staff and student restrooms.
Separate staff restrooms would be ideal.
Distinguishable entry - compatible with Bookstore and Fitness center but separate.
Need another information desk downstairs such as at candy counter for information.
Electronic bulletin board.
Need a larger candy counter with sink for washing.
Need a welcoming area with waiting lounge for Student Activities that is centrally locaed with a storefront
look.
Locate Student Activities closer to Recreation Center.
Student life need not be so centrally located.
Securable storage for bookkeeping records.
Storage for programming and events for Retail Operations.
Additional office for student assistant for bookkeeper.
Need welcoming reception area in front of Chestnut Room for food line or for pre-function activities.
Page 2 of 3
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Better location for student government with a store front look.
Locate all student offices in one area.
Info desk adjacent to staff offices so staff can be consulted on questions.
Info desk can be separate from computer desk.
Staff offices are maxed out now Need additional space for student employees.
Bigger offices are needed to accommodate student assistants.
Location of staff offices should be able to access other retail operations.
Need more coverage of security cameras.
Kitchenette and lunch room (with a window) for Kilcawley staff.
Additional conference rooms. Kilcawley currently has 18 conference rooms with 2 that are used as
computer training rooms for another 2 years.
Theater for movies with sound system and built-in lighting.
Chestnut Room should be larger (ideally 700 in row seating) but still need flexibility in room sizes like the
Chestnut Room is now.
Another room the size of the Ohio would be desirable.
More convenient parking and vehicular drop-off or a conference center loading dock.
More elevators.
Submitted by,
BURT HILL
/s/
Page 3 of 3
Cleveland, OH 44122
tel: 216-454-2150
fax: 216-454-9995
www.burthill.com
MEETING MINUTES
October 12, 2006
Meeting Number:
Meeting Date:
Project Phase:
Meeting Location:
T-3 Administration
10/10/2006
Programming
Kilcawley Center
Meeting Purpose:
Programming
Attendees:
Distribution:
YSU
George Mc Cloud - University Advancement
Donna Greenaway - Student Affairs
Tom Marraffa - Office of the President
Matt Novotny - YSU Kilcawley Center
All Attendees
Burt Hill
David Hatton
Mike Carter
Michael Reagan
Comments:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Image #1 Some liked because need a quiet place to study.
Image #2 Well liked because of views.
Image #5 Generally liked because of 2 storey aspect of the project.
Image #8 Liked outdoor space but not architecture.
Image #10 Like windows especially with windows to quad.
Image #15 Liked because of entry.
Image #19 Most popular because the location of the front door is evident.
•
•
Central campus location.
Functionality of the Chestnut Room.
•
It was agreed that a combination of quiet and open large spaces should be included.
q:\project\0607800\2 corr\meeting minutes- administration.doc
Page 1 of 2
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
6.
The quad is one place that has a “there” and so the renovations should take advantage of this amenity.
A new multi-purpose room should accommodate 1,200 seats (in rows) and 600 at banquet tables
The multi-purpose room should ideally serve as a lecture hall and a ballroom for a dance.
The multi-function room should also have a pre-function area and space for storage of seating.
The conference center facilities should accommodate some functions that will start with 300 people then
divide into 6 rooms at same time. Other functions (such as for student affairs) may have up to 100 people
in one of 6 rooms with less in others, 8 to 10 times per year.
The renovated student center should consolidate all student spaces so tours for prospective students can
show off all student spaces easily.
The most ideal situation would be to remove conference flow from student flow.
Other comments received included the following:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Many multipurpose rooms don’t work well (Jazz concerts don’t work well in Chestnut Room because of
acoustics.
YSU needs to clarify the functions that will be supported by Kilcawley. For instance, computer training could
be housed elsewhere.
The planning effort for Kilcawley should recognize other facilities are being planned such as the School of
Business that will have limited conference center facilities. Also Wick Pollack may be developed into
conference center. External groups could go elsewhere.
The church adjacent to the Butler Museum is owned by the Butler Museum and may be renovated into a
conference center. Burt Hill will contact Lou Zona, Director of Butler Museum regarding plans for church.
Options for student spaces will be greater when other venues become available. Recently a new theater for
music performances has become available in downtown Youngstown.
The planning process should concentrate on student needs but recognize the Universities need for a
conference center.
Market rate housing is being built nearby and Kilcawley Center may function differently in future. An arts
walkway has been designed to reinforce connection to YSU from residences to the east.
Submitted by,
BURT HILL
/s/
q:\project\0607800\2 corr\meeting minutes- administration.doc
Page 2 of 2
Cleveland, OH 44122
tel: 216-454-2150
fax: 216-454-9995
www.burthill.com
MEETING MINUTES
October 12, 2006
Meeting Number:
Meeting Date:
Project Phase:
Meeting Location:
T-4 Students
10/10/2006
Programming
Kilcawley Center
Meeting Purpose:
Programming
Attendees:
Distribution:
YSU
Trudy Seymour - Campus Recreation
Ryan McNicholas - Campus Recreation
Jeremy Fuller - Campus Recreation
Renee Gilson - Campus Recreation
Sam Carbon - Theta Chi
Benjamin Williamson - Inter Fraternity Council
Ian Tanner - Sigma Chi
Ryan Mortin - Office Student Diversity
Julio Salas - Office of Student Diversity
Jayene Anderson - Office of Student Diversity
All Attendees
Matt Novotny - YSU
Burt Hill
David Hatton
Mike Carter
Michael Reagan
Comments:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Image #1 Don’t like because it looks too quiet.
Image #2 Liked the glass, open airy looks larger than it is maybe better if just a hallway and too much
glass.
Image #3 Looks too much like Krisman Dining Hall.
Image #4 Unanimously disliked. Looks like a hunting lodge.
Image #5 Liked because lots of TVs and good views looks more spread out.
Image #6 Liked because of fireplace but also just a central gathering location.
Image #7 Did not like because it looks like a hotel Lobby. Looks like the LaRiccia lounge. Liked open and
airy feel.
q:\project\0607800\2 corr\meeting minutes- students.doc
Page 1 of 3
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Image #8 Don’t like because building looks like a resort. Like open outside seating area.
Image #9 Too narrow. Looks too much like existing Marketplace.
Image #10 About 50/50 like disliked. Liked because warm and cozy. Looks like a ski lodge. Didn’t like
because
too compact and not a place you could relax.
Image #11 Likes open feeling, looks like a food court at a mall.
Image #12 Looks like Tokyo. Don’t like wall hangings.
Image #13 Liked because it is open and like the electronic message board.
Image #14 Don’t like because it looks cramped too busy.
Image #15 Like because of open with lots of glass looks like a mall and OK place for a place.
Image #16 Don’t like because too awkward.
Image #17 Like because there is central entrance.
Image #18 Like the covered walkway. Don’t like because it looks like administration building.
Image #19 Like because you can see what is happening on the inside. You will notice it if you drive by. It
will complement Rec Center.
•
•
•
•
•
•
Options for food.
Like having bank and ATM.
Central Location.
Quiet and hangout socializing areas.
Candy counter.
Electronic message boards even though they only have ads.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Too hard to find and parking is too far.
No windows; looks like a prison.
No quiet spaces to get away.
Not enough daylight.
Claustrophobic meeting rooms.
Not enough things to do.
Not enough computers.
Not enough seating areas.
Too easy to get lost.
No direct path to get through Kilcawley.
Peaberry’s is a waste of space; the space appears cluttered; food is too expensive.
Kilcawley hours (not open on Saturday or Sunday)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Study Lounges.
Electronic message boards.
Separation between Kilcawley House and Kilcawley Center.
Wireless everywhere.
Bowling Alley.
Game Room with arcade games.
Greek hallway or area.
Better communication about activities like battle of the bands.
Better event advertisement perhaps on a marquee.
Movie theater.
Restaurant with healthy fresh food (especially for non traditional students).
Page 2 of 3
•
•
•
•
•
•
Restaurant hours such that students can get something to eat prior to evening classes.
More spaces for study, more spaces for socializing, and more spaces for activities somewhere between
studying and socializing.
Centralize student spaces and separate from centralized conference center spaces.
Provide financial aid and advising offices so that all student services are in one place.
Separate Kilcawley House from Kilcawley Center to allow way through.
Need more space in Kilcawley especially needed at the beginning of the school year.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Plenty of electric outlets for laptops.
Real food at a reasonable price especially for non-traditional students.
Greek hall or area.
Movie theater.
More table tennis tables.
More things to do.
More smaller eating areas where people could meet in small groups.
Submitted by,
BURT HILL
/s/
Page 3 of 3
Cleveland, OH 44122
tel: 216-454-2150
fax: 216-454-9995
www.burthill.com
MEETING MINUTES
From: Thom Krejci
October 25, 2006
Meeting Number:
Meeting Date:
Project Phase:
Meeting Location:
M-8 Student Mentors
10/25/2006
Programming
Kilcawley Center
Meeting Purpose:
Programming
Attendees:
Distribution:
YSU
All Attendees
Burt Hill
Mike Carter
Thom Krejci
Comments:
1. MC reviewed the overall process and goals for this meeting. MC noted the next step in the process will be to
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Image #2 Like the curves and windows: seemed “serene”. The outside seating area was also liked as
well as the open, modern appearance.
Image #5 Like the multifunction seating area as a social place for conversation as well as the windows.
Don’t like the modern appearance.
Image #6 Like the fireplace: gave a “homey” feel. Second story creates visual connection. Don’t like the
noise in a two-story space it also appears too crowded, congested.
Image #7 Like the classic, academic look with the contrasting white walls and dark wood. Don’t like the
academic look or the furniture.
Image #9 Like the stone pillars, recessed lighting and restaurant look.
Image #10 Like the glass on both sides of the seating area, the angled walls and the table layout. Don’t
like the bar look or the functionality of the tables.
Image #3 Like the tile and clean/sanitary appearance. Don’t like the overly stark/sterile appearance.
Image #13 Don’t like the “mall look” and the level of liveliness may not be appropriate for campus.
Image #14 Like the lighting, ceiling, and openness of the space. Don’t like the look as it appears too busy
and resembles a cooking show set.
Image #15 Like the glass and openness which allows views into spaces. Don’t like the prospect of dirty,
fingerprinted glass or a lot of empty, useless space.
Image #8 Like the outside seating. Don’t like the look as it is not appropriate for YSU.
Image #4 Don’t like the hunting lodge or log cabin look.
Image #1 Like the window sill as a place to relax. Don’t like the overly rustic look.
q:\project\0607800\2 corr\meeting minutes- student mentors.doc
Page 1 of 3
•
•
•
•
•
Image #19 Like the welcoming looking windows to the inside as well as the safe, inviting lighting.
Image #18 Like the timeless quality that appears academic but not too rigid. Don’t like the church like
appearance.
Image #20 Like the mix of modern and classic windows and the handicap accessibility.
Image #17 Like the look as it appears plausible in terms of build ability. Don’t like the generic, K-12 look.
Image #16 Don’t like the hard, “prison”-like appearance.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The spaces being provided for student organizations.
The Watson-Tressel lounge is comfortable.
There are separate areas for studying and socializing.
Organization meeting rooms are available.
Graphic Services are available.
The Chestnut Room is open and multifunctional.
Study lounges provide spaces for varying kinds of studying.
The art work and pictures hanging in the hallways.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
It is hard to book rooms for meetings.
The building looks blocky from the outside.
There are not enough activities to keep students on campus.
Building layout is confusing: Student organization offices hard to find.
The Information Center is not always informative.
The “curfew” doesn’t allow for late night events.
Cost of security for events is also high.
Doors with no windows or event signage make finding specialized meeting rooms difficult.
No maps or wayfinding tools.
Lighting is generally inadequate.
Parking is distant and difficult to come by.
Insufficient space for exhibiting tables for all organizations simultaneously.
The narrow hallways and subsequent noise are problematic.
Paying for use of facility rooms.
Food areas don’t work.
Many of the resources in the building are generally unknown.
Outside food cannot be brought in for events.
The elevator is slow.
Peaberry’s is expensive and events can’t be held there.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Movie theater and bowling alley.
Design needs to have easy access to everything.
An art center.
Activities going on day and night.
Spaces similar to the Presidential Suite that are transparent.
Have couches somewhere for semi-private area.
Bring Burger King back and possibly Chipotle a Bagel Stop and second smoothie stand.
More organic (i.e. less fast food) options.
Be able to use debit cards at eateries.
Better overall use of technology throughout with marquees, banners etc.
T.V. monitors not being used for student activity ads.
Page 2 of 3
•
•
Better use of travel agency and the Arby’s space.
Handicap accessible.
•
Provide more daylight (or at least high ceilings with more light). More student oriented spaces that are more
clearly separated from conference center aspects.
Attendees:
Name
Wasilwa Mwonyonyi
Darla Jones
Richard Black, Jr.
2 Fly Keith Logan
Mary K. Farragher
Christine Campf
Leonard Cain
Peter Koranchie-Boah
Hunter Morrison
Cynthia Anderson
Christine Bidwell
Susan Moorer
Laura Neely
Lynda Maschek
Jenifer Moorhead
Joe Iesue
Erianne R. Raib
Sparkil Alli
Affiliation
1
2
2
3
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
e-mail
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Student Affairs
Equal Opportunity & Diversity
Equal Opportunity & Diversity
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Submitted by,
BURT HILL
/s/
Profile Building
October 9, 2006
Page 3 of 3
5.2 Meeting Room Usage
Kilcawley Center
Meeting Room Usage 2005-2006
Number of Bookings
Room
Capacity Rental Fee Summer
2005
Fall
2005
Spring
2005
Part.
Summer
2006
Total for
Room
Chestnut Room
200-600
200
24
67
86
18
195
Ohio Room
34-200
100
63
110
125
24
322
SubTotal
517
Bresnahan Reception
12-20
60
9-25
60
9-25
60
16-18
60
16
60
20-40
75
Computer Training
20
150
Humphrey Room 2
18-40
75
James Gallery
30-130
100
28-90
75
16-20
75
Stambaugh Room
14
50
Room 2036
22
50
Room 2067
8
50
Room 2068
44
60
Room 2069/Esterly Room
22
60
Bresnahan I
1
Bresnahan II
1
Bresnahan III
Cochran Room
Coffelt Room
2
Jones Room
Pugsley Room
2
Kilcawley Center Grand Total
5426
Annual Room Reservation/Conference Service Summary
Figures include other conferencing facilities on campus
Total Events Scheduled per year
2005-2006 *
2004-2005
2003-2004
5930
6386
6277
Note: Subscript denotes rooms that can be joined by removal of movable walls.
* = Strike of 2005 resulted in cancellation of various activities
Burt Hill
Bowling Green State University
YSU Kilcawley Center Master Plan Study
Images of Student Centers
Cleveland State University – Student Center
Northern Kentucky – University Center
Northern Kentucky-University Center
Oakland University – Oakland Center
Oakland University-Oakland Center
Oakland University-Oakland Center
University of Northern Iowa - Maucker Union
University of Northern Iowa – Maucker Union
Wright State University – Student Union
Wright State University – Student Union
Eastern Michigan Univ. - Student Center
Eastern Michigan Univ. –Student Center
Penn State University, Beaver Campus
Rowan Univ. –Student Center
University of Delaware Student Union
Univ. of North Carolina - Wilmington. –Student Center
Univ. of North Carolina - Wilmington. –Student Center
Sarratt Student Center – Vanderbilt University
Sarratt Student Center – Vanderbilt University

Computer Services Home - Youngstown State University

Transcription

Similar documents

My Brother, My Sister: Shannon Boodram Rob Hill, Sr.

Stone Hill Flowering Pear L.E. COOKE CO

The Edge Brochure - Chestnut Hill Center

The Rock `N` Roll Diaries

Drumline Clinic w. Jeff Queen 2016

10/3 Dragon0Do-Right Assembly 6:00 Homecoming Parade 10/8

fantastic fabric prices! quilting cottons

Braedale Hill - North Lanarkshire Council

Wychitella Nature Conservation Reserve

VariViggen - Burt Rutan